GM Foods: The U.S. fights mandatory
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/2008-07-01/G [2008-7-7]
Tag : ad celery
The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO FoodStandards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health ofconsumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The CodexAlimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection ofinternationally adopted food standards presented in a uniformmanner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discussthe necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set upmandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (geneticallyengineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many Africancountries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that allGM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in factdeemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.
Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required toundergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market.Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
"FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure thesafety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, suchas fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarketapproval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used toensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions ofsection 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers toensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and complywith all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a foodfrom the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derivedfrom new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering willbe regulated under this authority as well" .
Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completelyuntested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a)the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of itsprepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every othernation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are putinto the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GEfoods as "lethal" and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a populationreduction strategy in Africa.
During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codexprovide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a10-page document expressing this view. In this document thefollowing critical points were made:
1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews
a. Corruption of Divine Protection
South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there arevarious religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes toingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these "religiousand ethical concerns must be noted and respected through globalmandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering andbiotechnology must take into account ethical and religiousconcerns" [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews andHalal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eatinghad been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarianswould certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animalgenes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if thiswas the case.
B. Moral and Ethical Protection
SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization)assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights ofChristian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling isessential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, aChristian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well asall living creatures (including food), then a serious ethicalconcern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modifiedfoods but had no realistic way to do so.
2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects
a. Psychological and Emotional Health
SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violatethe principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protectthe health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foodsstated that, "some customers may experience strong ethical,religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certainfoods. These perceived risks may influence their health. Theseaspects of health should also be considered when the needs for newstandards are discussed"[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foodsshould be mandatory under such an assumption.
B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods
Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significantconcern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoidsuch food out of legitimate concern for their well-being.Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if theantibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into theconsumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evincedfrom animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in everyorgan (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food.
C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence
SA contend that plants genetically modified may not benutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possesstoxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information forsuch foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrientcould be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may bepresent, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concludedthat the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm ofnon-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.
D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling
Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. Forexample, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported inJune of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severerashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling wouldallow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risksinvolved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based onthe principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistentand dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling ofGM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GEfoods essentially equates to human experimentation without informedconsent. According to Nuremberg Code,
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutelyessential. This means that the person involved should have legalcapacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able toexercise free power of choice, without the intervention of anyelement of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or otherulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficientknowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matterinvolved... All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to beexpected; and the effects upon his health or person, which maypossibly come from his participation in the experiment" [12].According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informedconsent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of theexperiment if they choose to do so.
After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind themandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g.,Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia,Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive researchclearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labelingis necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA)and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriagebetween U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, whoproduces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following theoverwhelming condemnation of SA's paper from the U.S. and the extraprocedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of thesecomments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.
As a result of this development and the constant battles with thecorporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA calledanother meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and createtheir own labeling system with or without their agreement.Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan,Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries withJapan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries statedtheir commitments to the mandatory labeling.
The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previouslabeling documents and keep the door open for the futurepossibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a laterdate, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.
References:
1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition. FDA's Policy for Foods Developed byBiotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008];
2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May27, 2008];
3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science inSociety, 33: (in press).
4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science inSociety, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.
5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths inthe Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.
6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science inSociety, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.
7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science inSociety, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.
8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modifiedfoods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish AgriculturalCollege, J.P.F. D'Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International:Edinburgh.
9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in theileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenicpotatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.
10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science inSociety, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.
11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the CodexAd Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived fromBiotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.
12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunalsunder Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO FoodStandards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health ofconsumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The CodexAlimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection ofinternationally adopted food standards presented in a uniformmanner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discussthe necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set upmandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (geneticallyengineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many Africancountries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that allGM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in factdeemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.
Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required toundergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market.Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
"FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure thesafety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, suchas fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarketapproval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used toensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions ofsection 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers toensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and complywith all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a foodfrom the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derivedfrom new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering willbe regulated under this authority as well" .
Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completelyuntested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a)the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of itsprepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every othernation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are putinto the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GEfoods as "lethal" and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a populationreduction strategy in Africa.
During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codexprovide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a10-page document expressing this view. In this document thefollowing critical points were made:
1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews
a. Corruption of Divine Protection
South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there arevarious religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes toingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these "religiousand ethical concerns must be noted and respected through globalmandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering andbiotechnology must take into account ethical and religiousconcerns" [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews andHalal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eatinghad been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarianswould certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animalgenes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if thiswas the case.
B. Moral and Ethical Protection
SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization)assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights ofChristian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling isessential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, aChristian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well asall living creatures (including food), then a serious ethicalconcern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modifiedfoods but had no realistic way to do so.
2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects
a. Psychological and Emotional Health
SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violatethe principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protectthe health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foodsstated that, "some customers may experience strong ethical,religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certainfoods. These perceived risks may influence their health. Theseaspects of health should also be considered when the needs for newstandards are discussed"[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foodsshould be mandatory under such an assumption.
B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods
Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significantconcern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoidsuch food out of legitimate concern for their well-being.Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if theantibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into theconsumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evincedfrom animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in everyorgan (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food.
C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence
SA contend that plants genetically modified may not benutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possesstoxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information forsuch foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrientcould be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may bepresent, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concludedthat the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm ofnon-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.
D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling
Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. Forexample, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported inJune of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severerashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling wouldallow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risksinvolved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based onthe principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistentand dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling ofGM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GEfoods essentially equates to human experimentation without informedconsent. According to Nuremberg Code,
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutelyessential. This means that the person involved should have legalcapacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able toexercise free power of choice, without the intervention of anyelement of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or otherulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficientknowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matterinvolved... All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to beexpected; and the effects upon his health or person, which maypossibly come from his participation in the experiment" [12].According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informedconsent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of theexperiment if they choose to do so.
After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind themandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g.,Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia,Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive researchclearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labelingis necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA)and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriagebetween U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, whoproduces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following theoverwhelming condemnation of SA's paper from the U.S. and the extraprocedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of thesecomments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.
As a result of this development and the constant battles with thecorporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA calledanother meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and createtheir own labeling system with or without their agreement.Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan,Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries withJapan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries statedtheir commitments to the mandatory labeling.
The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previouslabeling documents and keep the door open for the futurepossibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a laterdate, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.
References:
1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition. FDA's Policy for Foods Developed byBiotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008];
2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May27, 2008];
3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science inSociety, 33: (in press).
4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science inSociety, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.
5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths inthe Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.
6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science inSociety, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.
7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science inSociety, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.
8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modifiedfoods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish AgriculturalCollege, J.P.F. D'Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International:Edinburgh.
9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in theileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenicpotatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.
10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science inSociety, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.
11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the CodexAd Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived fromBiotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.
12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunalsunder Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.
Related News »
In Focus »
footwear exports
Last month, European footwear manufacturers proposed extending anti-dumping measures against ..
B2B Keywords:
International market Chinese Importer Wholesale trade Wholesale products World trade Wholesale distributors International trade Foreign trade Wholesale distributor Importers Import export business Sell online Help u sell Global trade How to market a product Online supplier Wholesale product
International market Chinese Importer Wholesale trade Wholesale products World trade Wholesale distributors International trade Foreign trade Wholesale distributor Importers Import export business Sell online Help u sell Global trade How to market a product Online supplier Wholesale product
Feature Products»
Hot Products: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9
-
-
About Us -
Links -
Privacy Policy -
Terms of Use -
Site Map -
Contact Us -
Call Center: 0086-95105561 © 2007 Tootoo.com -
