posted on July 4, 2002 05:28:51 AM new
[The Europeans are getting on board with other countries in declaring their independence! My title should read "Food: TOUGHER Labelling of GMOs for Europe."]
European Parliament backs tougher rules for labels on GM food products
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
04 July 2002
The European Parliament voted to toughen compulsory labelling rules for genetically modified foods yesterday, despite deep divisions and claims from some MEPs that consumers would be misled.
The Parliament, sitting in Strasbourg, backed a draft regulation to label items with at least 0.5 per cent content of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), or lower if scientifically acceptable – instead of the European Commission proposal for a 1 per cent threshold.
<snip>
The tougher regime, which needs the approval of EU member state governments, would require labelling of all products containing GM ingredients, including animal feed bought by farmers, and the labelling of products containing GM ingredients such as oils and sugars, even if they are not scientifically detectable but are identified through traceability schemes reliant on documents.
<snip>
Labour efforts to force through a scheme under which products could be marketed as GM-free only if they had zero GMO content were rejected. David Bowe, Labour's environment spokesman, said: "We are going to see products that are coming into our supermarkets that people will think are non-GMO but which will contain up to 0.5 per cent. That is like telling 99 per cent of the truth – it can be 100 per cent wrong."
Labour believes the law could provoke a conflict with the United States in the World Trade Organisation because American producers have made little effort to separate GM and non-GM crops.
"China introduces compulsory labelling of GE foods Hong Kong stalls"
Mon 01 July 2002
CHINA/Hong Kong
China's implementation of labelling for GE (genetically engineered) foods today brings to two billion the number of people worldwide whose country's require GE labelling.
<snip>
Active discussion on GE labelling is underway in Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.
<snip>
Lindsay Keenan, Greenpeace GE campaigner said "Labelling of GE foods is fast becoming the de-facto international standard. It is incredible that Canada and the US still allow vested interests to stall the introduction of GE labelling." Consumer surveys in the US and Canada indicate a clear demand for GE labelling.
posted on July 4, 2002 08:51:05 AM new "The shelves of just about every American supermarket are lined with foods that have been genetically altered to improve the product's taste, shelf life, or resistance to insects and other pests. Tomatoes, potatoes, squash, corn, and soybeans have been genetically altered through the emerging science of biotechnology. So have ingredients in everything from ketchup and cola to hamburger buns and cake mixes."
And according to this info from the FDA, the foods are not labeled unless there is a significant difference in the food such as nutritional difference or if it causes allergies.
EXCERPT>>
Most of the foods we eat today are the result of crossbreeding--a technique that relies on the laws of inheritance first described by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century--to obtain desired characteristics.
FDA Consumer: Why doesn't FDA require companies to tell consumers on the label that a food is bioengineered?
Dr. Henney: Traditional and bioengineered foods are all subject to the same labeling requirements. All labeling for a food product must be truthful and not misleading. If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its conventional counterpart--if the nutritional value changes or it causes allergies--it must be labeled to indicate that difference. For example, genetic modifications in varieties of soybeans and canola changed the fatty acid composition in the oils of those plants. Foods using those oils must be labeled, including using a new standard name that indicates the bioengineered oil's difference from conventional soy and canola oils. If a food had a new allergy-causing protein introduced into it, the label would have to state that it contained the allergen.
We are not aware of any information that foods developed through genetic engineering differ as a class in quality, safety, or any other attribute from foods developed through conventional means. That's why there has been no requirement to add a special label saying that they are bioengineered. Companies are free to include in the labeling of a bioengineered product any statement as long as the labeling is truthful and not misleading. Obviously, a label that implies that a food is better than another because it was, or was not, bioengineered, would be misleading.
posted on July 4, 2002 02:26:26 PM new
Helen and other food eaters,
[Sorry so long-edited for clickable link.]
Dr Henney's FDA position approval took quite awhile. This is what JAMA (Journal of American Medical Assoc.) reported. It would be a career disaster if she spoke out
for better labeling of irradiated or transgenic foods, as many multi-national
companies like Monsanto (based in St. Louis Missouri and who brought soldiers & Vietnamese the killer, Agent Orange) are swaying the U.S. government's actions.
==================
JAMA Vol 280 # 20 Nov 25, 1998
<snip>
"One thing Henney is unlikely to do is take on such big issues as more controls on tobacco and expansion of food labeling, as did her predecessor. For one thing, Senator Nickles' delay of the Senate vote was a warning to stay away from this approach.
<snip>
=========================
Fortunately for me I may finally have the right to know what is in my food, as of June, 2002 Democrat Dennis Kucinich stuck out at big agri-business :
The five bills introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) are:
* the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2002 (H.R. 4814)
(requires food companies to label all foods containing ingredients from
genetically engineered plants or animals)
* the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act of 2002 (H.R. 4813)
(improve the FDA's oversight and testing of transgenic foods)
* the Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act of 2002
(H.R. 4812)
(better protects farmers and ranchers against powerful biotech companies
and restore farmers' traditional right to save seed)
* the Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act of 2002 (H.R. 4816)
(clarify and reform liability and other legal issues associated with
genetically modified crops and foods)
* the Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002 (H.R. 4815)
(expand research to help developing nations better feed themselves)
[Copied from an email by Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club Chair, Genetic Engineering Committee.]
=======================
And Helen,
The FDA can say "We are not aware of any information that foods developed through genetic engineering differ as a class in quality, safety, or any other attribute from foods developed through conventional means" because no allergists are
testing for food allergies to these new foods. It will only be after a few
people have died (as in new drugs) that the foods are pulled off with a
"Oops! We made a mistake!"
Test out the theory of allergen safety yourself. Dr. Dean Metcalf, Head of NIH, Allergies and Infectious Diseases stated to me that each
new transgenic food carries different DNA, and would have to be tested
separately. Call allergists & any medical labs that run allergy blood tests
(IgE, Elisa, etc) near/in your town and ask if they routinely test for transgenic
food allergies. Corn for example would
have to be tested separately as traditional corn, Round-Up Ready corn and
any other new variety listed at the FDA website (per Dr. Metcalf in a phone
conversion.) The blood labs & allergists were NOT testing last year around here. No one KNOWS what allergies are developing or have developed! I tried to be tested
in many different states and actually had people calling in Canada too.
After that call your insurance company and ask how they pay for transgenic
food testing. My allergist knew nothing about transgenics so I called my
VERY large health insurance company to get particulars. They didn't know
what I was talking about. Last year after I explained again what the food was
I finally got someone to say they
would probably pay for just the test taken at the allergists. It would
be the responsibility of the patient and doctor to secure the correct
samples of corn, soy, canola, squash, etc. for the tests. If your children have
had allergy tests done recently and testing of ALL the transgenic foods were not
done, they didn't have a complete test.
And another thing: When the government says that we have been cross-breeding
they are trying to confuse. DO NOT kid yourself. Start
doing some research. We were crossbreeding the same species, NOT gene-splicing
entirely different species together. There are reports of weakened chickens,
trees that are having problems, transgenic Salmon escaping, etc.
The very sad thing is so little gets into the U.S. press. The US people seem to be so
sure the government is going to take care of them. We haven't learned a thing
from 9-11. Our government officials are there to serve themselves and multi-nationals,
not the American people! [And they will be contacting AW and taking me away tomorrow!]
[ edited by aposter on Jul 4, 2002 02:29 PM ]
Thanks for bringing that information to our attention. As you suggested, we cannot rely on the US media to cover controversial issues such as this one. Of course, the government is not looking out for our best interest.
The qualifications on which Bush based his appointment for the position of Department of Agriculture head, Ann Veneman....
Ann Veneman (Agriculture): lawyer with a firm specializing in representing agribusiness giants and biotech corporations. On board of Calgene Inc., a subsidiary of Monsanto, the first firm to market genetically altered food. Also a participant in the International Policy Council of Agriculture, Food and Trade, a group funded by Monsanto, Cargill, Archer-Daniels-Midland,
Kraft and Nestle.
posted on July 4, 2002 08:41:30 PM new
Great link, Helen!
The sad thing is we are guinea pigs and helped make it so. Most of the early research from what I gather was done in government facilities (including universities) with taxpayer's money.
