Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 3

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 3

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt. 2,”
I wrote extensively about the position assumed by the FDA in regards to
genetically modified food and the methodology used to assess its safety
before it is released into the general food supply. Needless to say,
the FDA, which is notorious for its corruption and revolving door with Big Agricultural Corporations like Monsanto, takes an unbelievably hands-off approach to the regulation of GM food.

Yet, unfortunately, the approach taken by the FDA toward GM Food is only
unbelievable if one expects the agency to apply science, logic, and
reason to their decision-making process.

However, when one begins evaluating the FDA position on GM food in the
context of the position held by Codex Alimentarius, one can easily see
an agenda taking shape whose ultimate goal is the total proliferation of
GM food the world over.

For instance, in the early 1990s, around the time the
FDA was announcing its own policy toward GM food, the debate within
Codex was heating up as well. Most of the arguments were taken up by the
Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) and, for the most part, pitted
the United States and Canada against the European Union, India, and
Norway.

In 1996, because little could be agreed upon, the CCFL asked for
guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) on how labeling
guidelines might be developed. In 1997 the CAC produced a document for
that purpose. These recommendations were that foods not “equivalent” to
natural foods in nutritional value, intended use, or composition should
be labeled.

Yet this was not accepted into Codex guidelines as Australia, New
Zealand, Peru, and Brazil joined with Canada and the United States in
opposing these recommendations. Definitions of terms also became an
issue at the meeting.[1]


At the 27th CCFL session in 1999, it was decided that the Proposed Draft
Recommendations for GM food labeling be reconsidered and rewritten. For
this purpose, Codex created the Ad Hoc Working Group. Their stated
mission was to more fully define “biotechnology-derived foods” and to
revise the options considered for labeling between process-based and
substantial equivalence methods. The Working Group also agreed to
consider establishing a maximum level of GM ingredients in a food as
well as a minimum level for accidental inclusion of GM ingredients or
food within a food.

As mentioned earlier, substantial equivalence has emerged as the most
favored method of labeling within Codex, in an almost identical fashion
to the FDA and Health Canada model.

Indeed, it is easily understood why this is the case when one takes a
closer look at the Working Group developed to evaluate and rewrite
labeling recommendations. While certain instances may seem harmless when
viewed separately, when taken together they reveal a rather obvious
attempt to stack the odds in favor of pro-GM sentiment by the CCFL.

First, Canada, perhaps the most pro-GM Codex member country besides the
United States, was selected to chair the Group as well as coordinate the
Group’s direction.

Also, a smaller Drafting Group was created under the Working Group to
“hold the pen.” It was this group that would do much of the actual work
in terms of hammering out the Recommendations document. However, five of
the six countries represented in the Drafting Group were pro-GM
countries.[2] Clearly, it would be difficult for a non-favorable view of
GM food to win out in a situation such as this.

In
2000, an attempt was made by the CCFL to direct the Working Group to
streamline the two different methods of labeling (process-based and
substantial equivalence) into a Codex Guideline as well as other key
issues involving GM food labeling. A document of this nature was
subsequently produced by the United States. Yet, despite the packing of
the Drafting and Working Groups, the CCFL was still unable to approve
the guidelines that the groups produced.

However, the Committee was able to approve the use of three definitions related to GM food.[3] They are as follows:

1. Food and food ingredients obtained through certain techniques of
   genetic modification/genetic engineering – food and food ingredients
   composed of or containing genetically modified/engineered organisms
   obtained through modern biotechnology, or food and food ingredients
   produced from, but not containing genetically modified/engineered
   organisms obtained through modern biotechnology.
   
2. Genetically modified/engineered organism – an organism in which the
   genetic material has been changed through modern biotechnology in a way
   that does not occur naturally by multiplication and/or natural
   recombination.
   
3. Modern Biotechnology – the application of:
   

<blockquote class="tr_bq">a. In vitro nucleic acid
techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the
direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles </blockquote><blockquote>b.
Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome
natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers and that
are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.[4]</blockquote>When
one looks at the definitions agreed upon at the 29th session of Codex,
it can be seen that there is a move toward using the term “modern
biotechnology” in place of “genetic engineering/modification.” This is
largely an attempt to use semantics in an effort to reduce, through
ignorance, the apprehension of the public to the consumption of GMO’s.

However, in the face of such controversy, in 2003 Codex did produce and
approve a set of Guidelines for the assessment of the safety of GM food.
Entitled “Codex Principles and Guidelines On Foods Derived From
Biotechnology,” the Guidelines do not deal with labeling concerns at
all, but with the standards for the science used to assess these foods
for safety.

The “Codex Principles and Guidelines On Foods Derived From
Biotechnology” is made up of four sections, two of which deal with GM
plants while the other sections deal with GM organisms in general and GM
animals respectively. Similar to the “Guidelines for Vitamins and
Mineral Supplements,” these guidelines are not only unscientific but
carefully crafted to allow the approval of dangerous GM foods. The game,
in essence, is clearly rigged.

When looking at the first section of the guidelines one is able to see a
very real correlation to those designated for vitamins and minerals.
Using a form of risk analysis to determine the safety of GM food, Codex
seeks to explain the reason for its choice of methodology. It states
<blockquote class="tr_bq">While risk analysis has been used over a long
period of time to address chemical hazards (e.g. residues of pesticides,
contaminants, food additives and processing aids), and it is being
increasingly used to address microbiological hazards and nutritional
factors, the principles were not elaborated specifically for whole
foods.[5] </blockquote>This is an interesting statement considering the
fact that risk analysis was indeed considered adequate for the safety
examination of vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements. However,
for whole foods, GM foods in particular, Codex has decided that risk
analysis is not appropriate.

The
very next section of the Introduction admits that while risk analysis
can in fact be applied to foods (including GM food) “in general terms”,
“it is recognized that this approach must be modified when applied to a
whole food rather than to a discrete hazard that may be present in
food.”[6] One can gain an understanding of how the process is adapted to
suit the needs of Codex by reading through the guidelines as a whole.
However, suffice it to say that this modification is generally the
removal of all standards and qualifications that might illuminate the
vast amount of safety concerns present within GM foods.[7]

Another disturbing statement made in the introduction to the document
casts even more doubt upon the scientific validity of Codex’s
guidelines. The Guidelines state,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Where appropriate, the results of a risk
assessment undertaken by other regulatory authorities may be used to
assist in the risk analysis and avoid duplication of work.[8] </blockquote>While
on its face, this statement appears only to be a call for labor
efficiency, at its best it assumes the objectivity of the regulatory
authorities doing the testing. However, what is most concerning about
this policy is that risk assessment “conclusions” reached by regulatory
agencies such as the FDA and Health Canada may be accepted in place of
an independent examination.

Truthfully, the likelihood of a legitimately independent assessment made
possible by Codex is almost nonexistent. However, in the case of GMO’s,
the odds are even less so for the FDA and Health Canada, two agencies
that have been largely bought and paid for by Monsanto and other large
agri-business corporations. Indeed, as far as GM foods go, the FDA
assessments have largely been completed since the time that the agency
has claimed that there is no difference between genetic modification and
traditional plant breeding.[9] This agency has also made it clear that
safety testing is to be conducted by the manufacturer of the product
rather than the agency itself, relying solely on the company’s
scientific and moral standards. In effect, as mentioned earlier, the
science determining the safety of GM foods comes straight from the
manufacturer itself.[10]

With this in mind, one can clearly see that the same line of ascension
exists in Codex Alimentarius. If Codex is willing to accept the safety
assessments of regulatory agencies without independent testing of its
own and regulatory agencies are willing to accept the safety assessments
of corporations without independent testing of their own, then Codex is
willing to accept the safety assessments of corporations without
independent safety testing of their own. Indeed, this syllogism
adequately reflects the reality of the relationship between Codex,
corporations, and the future of GM foods.

Another issue of great concern is the definition of “conventional
counterpart.” Because Codex uses the concept of substantial
equivalence[11], this seemingly requires that the GM product be compared
to its natural counterpart.

However, the definition of conventional counterpart, according to Codex,
is “a related organism/variety, its components and/or products for
which there is experience of establishing safety based on common use as
food.”[12] This definition poses a potential problem because it does not
make clear (in the body of the text) that the conventional counterpart
must be the natural version of the food. In a footnote, the statement is
made that “It is recognized that, for the foreseeable future, foods
derived from modern biotechnology will not be used as conventional
counterparts.”[13]

The phrase, “for the foreseeable future” raises its own difficulties,
because it provides a potential loophole. “Foreseeable future” does not
set a timeline for the current policy to run out, but it does leave open
the possibility of allowing a change in the current practice.

Allowing GM products to be compared to other GM products for substantial
equivalence is an enormous blow to the environment, human health, and
consumer choice. Such an action would completely undercut the already
weak and ridiculous method of substantial equivalence and would turn the
entire nature of our food supply upside down. One would be comparing a
dangerous product to another dangerous product but labeling it safe
because it was substantially equivalent to the first dangerous product.

Like the situation involving vitamins and minerals, this is the Twilight Zone reality produced by Codex once it gains power of the food supply.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_8.html