Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 2

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 2







Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article,
I discussed the Codex Alimentarius position on the proliferation of
Genetically Modified food in the world’s food supply – particularly the
concept of substantial equivalence which uses circular and faulty logic
in order to allow greater saturation of the food supply with genetically
modified food.

“Substantial equivalence,” is an approach that seeks to approve the use
and consumption of GM food based upon the idea that it is “substantially
equivalent” to its traditional counterpart, thus, GM proponents claim,
it is safe to consume and requires no extra labeling. This approach to
GM food is easily dismantled and I encourage the reader to access my
article on the subject in order to understand the weaknesses and dangers
of using the substantial equivalence model for GM food in any context.

The concept of substantial equivalence is unfortunately the theory of
labeling requirements adopted by Codex. It is also very similar to the
criteria used in the United States and Canada. As to be expected in such
pro-GM countries as the United States, the GM labeling requirements are
even less restrictive than those of Codex.

For the most part, labeling of GM foods in the United States and Canada
is completely voluntary. This voluntary labeling scheme based on the
concept of substantial equivalence is both a prime example of the
weakness of both standards, as well as a dark omen as to the direction
of Codex guidelines as they continue to be developed.[1]

The FDA does not require GM foods to be labeled
unless they meet one of four rather severe criteria. Even then, the
labeling refers only to the issue at hand, not the process from which
the food was created. The criteria for labeling are as follows:


1.) If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its
traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer
adequately describes the new food.
2.) If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food
regarding how the food is used or consequences of its use, a statement
must be made on the label to describe the issue.
3.) If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference.
4.) If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not
expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that
allergen must be disclosed on the label.[2]

So, as these recommendations suggest, a GM food must only be labeled
when it is so different from its “conventional counterpart” that it
cannot even be considered the same food, is the cause of reactions or
consequences that the natural version of it would not have caused, has a
“significant” difference in nutritional composition, or if it
introduces an allergen that would not otherwise have been present.

It should be noted, like the Codex guidelines for substantial
equivalence mentioned earlier, that “significant” difference in
nutritional composition is not clearly defined. So what some may
consider to be truly significant might not even be considered worthy of
any concern by the FDA, and certainly not by the manufacturing company.

Also, as mentioned earlier, there is no discussion of whether or not the
inclusion of allergens to a food includes those less common allergies
or just the most popular such as peanuts. Yet even meeting these
criteria does not necessarily draw the label of “genetically modified” -
merely a labeling of the potential side effects of consuming these
foods.[3]

Only
when one of these four criteria has been met must companies label their
products in a manner that may suggest genetic modification and, even
then, only in a subtle manner. In all other instances, however, the
labeling is completely voluntary.

Just as disconcerting as voluntary labeling is the fact that the alleged
“safety testing” is not even conducted by the FDA or any other
regulatory agency, but by the food producers themselves. The FDA merely
takes for granted the truth of whatever is provided them by industry.
That is, if anything is provided to them at all.[4]

As stated in the federal register as far back as 1992, the FDA says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">FDA has traditionally encouraged producers of
new food ingredients to consult with FDA when there is a question about
an ingredient’s regulatory status, and firms routinely do so, even
though such consultation is not legally required.[5]</blockquote>It is
certainly concerning to know that, at best, firms are encouraged to
consult with the FDA but are not required to do so. Interestingly
enough, this is not the position taken in regards to proven safe and
effective natural and herbal supplements.

Adding to absurdity of the voluntary labeling policy held by the FDA,
the regulatory agency works on the premise that GM foods are safe to
begin with and that there is no difference between GM food and natural
food.[6]

In the 1992 FDA Federal Register, the agency makes the claim,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">In most cases, the substances expected to
become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant
will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly
found in food, such as proteins, fats and oils, and carbohydrates.[7]</blockquote>Notice
the similar terminology of “substantially similar” as compared with the
“substantial equivalence” of Codex. This adds even more credibility to
the idea that the Codex model of GM food regulation is based on that
used by the pro-GM FDA. Not only that, although the difference between
the wording might seem unimportant to some, the term “similar” is even
more open-ended than the Codex “equivalent.”

But how did the FDA come to these conclusions?

The agency admits that there is no premarket testing by the FDA itself;
merely relying on industry to voluntarily consult with the FDA only when
the industry feels there might be a problem with the product. [8]

Yet the agency still maintains, through basic assumption, that GM foods
are not different from the natural versions. In the same Federal
Register it says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Under this policy, foods, such as fruits,
vegetables, grains, and their byproducts, derived from plant varieties
developed by the new methods of genetic modification are regulated
within the existing framework of the act, FDA’s implementing
regulations, and current practice, utilizing an approach identical in
principle to that applied to foods developed by traditional plant
breeding. The regulatory status of a food, irrespective of the method by
which it is developed, is dependent upon objective characteristics of
the food and the intended use of the food (or its components). The
method by which food is produced or developed may in some cases help to
understand the safety or nutritional characteristics of the finished
food. However, the key factors in reviewing safety concerns should be
the characteristics of the food product, rather than the fact that the
new methods are used.[9] </blockquote>The FDA here is claiming that the
process of genetic modification, even though it has not evaluated it
thoroughly, is not only safe but, for the most part, irrelevant to the
question of food safety.

Of course, this is merely manufacturing conclusions out of thin air. The
FDA asserts the safety of GM food because there is “substantial
equivalence” between the two. However, there is “substantial
equivalence” only because the FDA claims that this is the case. There is
a massive lack of evidence to support any of these claims.

The
FDA also claims that genetic engineering is no different from
“traditional plant breeding,” an argument that is often made within the
pro-GM community. Such is the belief (or argument) that traditional
means of plant breeding such as grafting and cross-pollination are
essentially the same as removal and insertion of DNA from one life form
to another. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

This argument would be akin to claiming that breeding of humans of
different ethnic backgrounds is the same as breeding between humans and
horses.

Additionally, the question of how the FDA would know this -- since it
has not conducted any scientific experiments regarding this claim --
arises yet again. Still, it continues to blend the two very different
methods together by defining genetic engineering as the “alteration of
the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional.”[10]

Thus, the FDA puts the insertion of a pig gene into a tomato into the
same category as natural birth, since genes change and develop with each
generation. If there were any doubt as to whether or not this is the
FDA’s position their claim that “Most, if not all, cultivated food crops
have been genetically modified,” should easily remove it. [11] This
claim is only true if one accepts the FDA’s definition of natural
reproduction as genetic engineering.

As in most cases involving the FDA, the biotech food industry, and Codex
Alimentarius, the boundaries of logic are not only pushed to the
breaking point in order to justify and promote the proliferation of GM
food, those boundaries are regularly crossed.

Indeed, these mental gymnastics used create an environment in which
toxic GM food is virtually unregulated while healthy organic substances
are annihilated by force and regulation are a feat in their own right.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_6.html