Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 4

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 4







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

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article
regarding Codex Alimentarius Guidelines on Genetically Modified food, I
discussed the dangerous concept used by both the international
organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) known as
substantial equivalence/substantial similarity and how this method of
comparison and evaluation can and is being used to further the
proliferation of GM food in the world’s food supply.

In discussing the method used to evaluate the safety of GM food, I wrote,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">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.</blockquote>Furthermore, in regards to the “substantial equivalence” methodology mentioned above, I concluded the article by stating,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">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.</blockquote>Like the situation involving vitamins and minerals, this is the Twilight Zone reality produced by Codex once it gains power of the food supply.

Unfortunately, this potential concern is now an
imminent one because Monsanto has in fact submitted an application for a
GM corn called LY038. In its submission for approval, Monsanto provided
the regulators’ assessing the product with information comparing LY038
with another GM corn product called LY038 (-), another GM corn
product.[1]


True to form, in many of the pro-GM countries such as New Zealand,
Australia, Japan, Canada, the Philippines, and South Korea, the LY038
corn was approved based upon the method of using a GM corn as a
conventional counterpart.[2] The United States, being the most open to
GM food, and only requiring voluntary submission, has also approved
LY038 for cultivation.[3]

Thankfully, the Monsanto agenda stalled in the European Union, and in
2009 Monsanto withdrew its application for the product in Europe.[4]
This is largely due to a small group of relatively independent
scientists from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI)
out of New Zealand who brought out many risks evident from a close
reading of the Monsanto application dossiers.

As
a result of their work, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
requested additional research and safety data. That was all that was
needed in order to cause Monsanto to withdraw its application for LY038
use in Europe.[5]

Monsanto claimed that the reason for the removal of its submission
purely economical and that “although our preference would have been to
complete the EU approval of LY038, conducting further studies, as
requested [by the EFSA GMO Panel], can no longer be justified, in view
of the additional costs involved and the reduced commercial interest in
this product.”[6]

However, those who are aware of Monsanto’s track record have a different
take. In a statement made to Biosafety Information Centre, Prof. Jack
Heinemann, who led the INBI research team, summed up the situation
succinctly.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I personally don’t believe that the withdrawal
of LY038 from commercialization was a budget blow-out. Monsanto
estimated that the street-value of LY038 was going to be US $1
billion/year. People are still feeding corn to cows, chickens and pigs
and corn is still being converted to biofuel in the US. The price of
corn is at historical highs and is not expected to decrease. Do we
really believe that a market of $1 billion/year is too small for
Monsanto? I don’t. . . . . . The major issue raise by EFSA was
Monsanto’s use of another GM product as a control in all its safety
studies. This violates both international food safety testing guidelines
and European rules. INBI was the first in the world to point this out.
FSANZ [Food Standards Australia New Zealand] ignored it. EFSA didn’t.
Monsanto pulled the product. We estimate that upwards of US $1 billion
had already been invested and if it were just a matter of demonstrating
that a safe product was safe, then a few tidy up scientific studies
would have cost nothing in comparison.[7]</blockquote>The obvious reason
that the application was pulled, at least according to this writer and,
seemingly, Prof. Heinemann, is that Monsanto’s LY038 was absolutely
unsafe for consumption and that it would never have stood up to any
scientific safety testing. It is also likely that the company’s own
research data would have proven its danger since it would not even
submit the requested material to EFSA. In conjunction with this,
Monsanto may have been afraid that exposure of this fact would have
crippled its progress with the countries that did approve LY038.

However, while it did not succeed with the EU (this time), the precedent
has been set for using a GM product as a conventional counterpart.

This will undoubtedly affect Codex guidelines in the future, especially
considering the fact that so many and such major players have accepted
these standards of testing. Indeed, it will undoubtedly set a dangerous
precedent for the evaluation of the safety of GM food the world over.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_11.html