Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 5

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 5







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

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt.4,”
I discussed a tangible, real-world example of the results of using
“substantial equivalence” or “substantial similarity” when assessing the
dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) food and/or approving that food
for the market.


Returning to the defining Codex document in relation to GM food, “Food
Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” it should be noted that the risks
associated with GMOs are dealt with in a rather curious manner. Indeed,
the monitoring and management of risks from GM food after their approval
is mentioned rather blandly in the introductory section of the
Guidelines. It says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Post market-monitoring may be undertaken for the purpose of: </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">A.)
Verifying conclusions about the absence or the possible occurrence,
impact and significance of potential consumer health effects; and </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">B.)
Monitoring changes in nutrient intake levels, associated with the
introduction of foods likely to alter nutritional status significantly,
to determine their human health impact. [1]</blockquote>It should be
noted that these are issues which should be resolved in a scientific
setting prior to market. Yet Codex is obviously content to allow the
public to act as lab rats in the real world rather than force these side
effects to be addressed in an actual lab. Absolute disregard for the
global population is evident here.

As will be discussed in future articles, when one
understands the ultimate purpose of Codex Alimentarius, it becomes clear
as to why policies like this emanate from the organization. Such is
also the case when Codex mentions the management of risks finding their
way into the market and the need for post-market tracing for the purpose
of recall.[2] It is important to note that tracing food materials is a
difficult task, especially if those products have already found their
way into the environment and have begun to reproduce.


Regardless, the second chapter of Codex’s “Foods Derived From Modern
Biotechnology” makes what should be considered a revelatory admission.
It says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The Codex principles of risk analysis,
particularly those for risk assessment, are primarily intended to apply
to discrete chemical entities, such as food additives and pesticide
residues, or a specific chemical or microbial contaminant that have
identifiable hazards and risks; they are not intended to apply to whole
foods as such.[3]</blockquote>Essentially, this is an admission that
risk assessment methodology is absolutely incapable and inappropriate
when dealing with the safety of a whole food. As Codex makes clear, the
principles for risk assessment were never intended to address anything
other than chemicals and additives.

However, one should remember that risk assessment is indeed the method
used to determine the safety of vitamins, nutrients, and minerals by
Codex Alimentarius in order to label them unsafe at unreasonably low
levels.

But Codex continues with even further admission that the testing methods
used are not nearly as intense as one might think. The document reads,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Traditionally, new varieties of food plants
have not been systematically subjected to extensive chemical,
toxicological or nutritional evaluation prior to marketing, with the
exception of foods for specific groups, such as infants, where the food
may constitute a substantial portion of the diet. Thus, new varieties of
corn, soybean, potatoes and other common food plants are evaluated by
breeders for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, but generally,
foods derived from such new plant varieties are not subjected to the
rigorous and extensive food safety testing procedures, including studies
in animals, that are typical of chemicals, such as food additives or
pesticide residues, that may be present in food.[4]</blockquote>Simply
put, Codex is admitting, albeit cleverly, that the testing method for
whole foods is inadequate, and that the testing itself is not nearly as
extensive as it would be for evaluating a known toxin like a chemical,
pesticide, or apparently, vitamins and minerals.

As related to Codex’s position on vitamins and minerals, Codex considers
genetically modified foods that have been engineered to produce a
deadly chemical or pesticide to be a whole food, but vitamin C is
considered a toxin.

Yet Codex does not stop here with the prefacing of their intended deceit
and the admission of flawed and manipulated science. It says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Animal studies cannot be readily applied to
testing the risks associated with whole foods, which are complex
mixtures of compounds, often characterized by a wide variation in
composition and nutritional value. Owing to their bulk and effect on
satiety, they can usually only be fed to animals at low multiples of the
amounts that might be present in the human diet. In addition, a key
factor to consider in conducting animal studies on foods is the
nutritional value and balance of the diets used; this is in order to
avoid the induction of adverse effects that are not related directly to
the material itself. Detecting any potential adverse effects and
relating these conclusively to an individual characteristic of the food
can, therefore, be extremely difficult. If the characterization of the
food indicates that the available data are insufficient for a thorough
safety assessment, properly designed animal studies could be requested
on the whole foods. Another consideration in deciding the need for
animal studies is whether it is appropriate to subject experimental
animals to such a study if it is unlikely to give rise to meaningful
information.[5]</blockquote>But there are several problems with this statement.

First, let it be made clear that this writer does not support the use of animals for laboratory testing for any reason.

However, this issue is not the focus of this article and it will be
repeatedly referred to in its proper context in terms of scientific
debate.

That being said, what Codex has admitted to in this statement, albeit
subtly, is that test subjects will actually be fed significantly less of
the GM food in question than exists in the standard human diet.
Nowhere does Codex mention that the amount fed to the test subjects can
be adjusted per capita, but simply that the amount fed to them will be
“at low multiples of the amounts that might be present in the human
diet.”[6]

Furthermore, Codex attempts to convince the reader that because of
differences in nutritional values and diet balance in the animals being
tested it is extremely difficult to determine if there are any adverse
effects resulting from the material being tested or another
material/condition. Hence, Codex would have the reader believe that this
problem could not be solved by the addition of a control group.

In the end, the overall conclusion of Codex is that testing GM foods is
largely unproductive and that, for the most part, it should only be
conducted in very special circumstances. Mere post-market tracking is
looked upon as the most favorable route. This, however, leaves the
consumer as the test subject, and corrective action can only be taken
after it is too late for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of
people.

Codex
furthers this claim with an admission of its acceptance of “substantial
equivalence” as a testing standard. Because of the problems associated
with using risk assessment to address dangers in whole foods (but
evidently not nutrients and vitamins), Codex claims it must rely on
substantial equivalence to address intended and unintended changes in
the food. Hence, Codex officially accepts the concept. [7]

In subsequent sections, Codex claims that even weak standards like
substantial equivalence may not be required. The guidelines state, “For
the reasons described in Section 3, conventional toxicology studies may
not be considered necessary where the substance or a closely related
substance has, taking into account its function and exposure, been
consumed safely in food.”[8]

However, there is no discussion of exactly how it will be determined
that these substances have been consumed safely in food to begin with.
Considering the fact that toxic substances like fluoride and rBGH have
been consumed “safely” in food for many years, it is certainly
frightening to think that even more substances may be created and added
to the food supply under the guise of a history of safe consumption.
Nevertheless, this process (or lack thereof) is not only unscientific,
it is very dangerous.

Although Codex clearly maintains a double standard in regards to GM food
versus vitamins and nutrients, there are some similarities in the risk
assessment procedure applied to them. One of the few instances in which
Codex applies the same standards for GM food as for dietary supplements
is the area of nutritional properties of the food.

In fact, this procedure is in direct correlation to the Guidelines for
Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements and works in tandem with them in
order to create a lower acceptable level of nutrients in the food
itself.

In relation to this situation, it is important to pay close attention to
several statements made within the guidelines. For instance,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Information about the known patterns of use
and consumption of a food, and its derivatives should be used to
estimate the likely intake of the food derived from the recombinant-DNA
plant. The expected intake of the food should be used to assess the
nutritional implications of the altered nutrient profile both at
customary and maximal levels of consumption. Basing the estimate on the
highest likely consumption provides assurance that the potential for any
undesirable nutritional effects will be detected. [9]</blockquote>While
this language is carefully crafted to appear benign and concerned only
with the welfare of different cultures consuming the GM food, what is
actually being presented is the idea of a Global Expectable Average
Daily Diet for purposes of creating an Upper Limit not on GM food, but
on the nutrients existing within the food itself - all this, while, at
the same time, allowing genetically engineered food to remain virtually
unregulated.

As mentioned in the chapter dealing with vitamin and mineral
supplements, the Global Average Daily Diet is simply taking the
“average” level of consumption of a food or nutrient across the world
and using that level as a base level standard for what will be
considered the average intake of the product by all populations. The
highest or lowest levels are usually chosen based on the needs of the
scientist, particularly in situations like these where researchers have
ulterior motives.

Remember,
in the case of vitamin and mineral food supplements where the highest
level of intake was used instead of the real average. This was because
third world countries were not included properly in the average.

Like the GADD for vitamins and nutrients, the highest level of
consumption will be used to examine GM food. However, using the highest
level of consumption, in this case, will have an entirely different
effect than it did upon vitamins and minerals.

Using the highest level of consumption estimation in concert with the
concept of substantial equivalence, Codex creates an environment where
it would be difficult for GM food not to be approved.

With the concept of substantial equivalence and the GADD taken in
concert with one another, we could easily imagine a hypothetical
scenario such as the following:

We might imagine that potatoes have a higher consumption rate in North
America and Europe than in other regions of the world. So researchers
would determine, based on the rate of potato consumption of Europe and
North America, the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet. This average
consumption rate would be applied worldwide regardless of other
cultures’ consumption of potatoes. Likewise, using the concept of
substantial equivalence, GM potatoes would be approved with an Upper
Limit of the highest rate of consumption worldwide.


Thus, substantial equivalence and the GADD are two pieces of the puzzle
used to craft a system of regulations in which vitamins and mineral
supplements are severely restricted in terms of levels of nutrition,
while GM food remains virtually unregulated at all.

In future articles, I intend to expand upon the possibilities of these
concepts to be used to form a regulatory structure in which nutrition
itself is regulated even out of food and where the genetically modified
version is the only acceptable product.


Source:-

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_14.html