Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 7

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 7







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

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In several of my recent articles, I have discussed the problems of using “risk assessment” methodology in the evaluation of both vitamin and mineral supplements and Genetically Modified (GM) food. I have also discussed at length the dangers of the Codex Alimentarius and U.S. Food and Drug Administration position on GM food which is known as “substantial equivalence” and, in its more extreme forms, “substantial similarity.”

However, another concern addressed by the Codex Guidelines has to deal
with antibiotic resistance created through the process of genetic
engineering. Yet, as is typical of any Codex Alimentarius presentation,
the agency makes several misleading and unsettling statements in this
regard as well. While Codex does state that methods should be used that
do not result in antibiotic resistance, it qualifies that claim in its
document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” by stating that
these methods should be used “where such technologies are available and
demonstrated to be safe.”[1] This is certainly no mandate. It is merely a
suggestion that will most likely be completely ignored by industry.

The Guidelines then go on to say that “Gene transfer
from plants and their food products to gut micro-organisms or human
cells is considered a rare possibility because of the many complex and
unlikely events that would need to occur consecutively.”[2] This
statement stands in direct contradiction to established science.[3]
Indeed, the series of events that would have to transpire in order for
the transfer of modified genes from a plant to human DNA or cells are
neither unlikely nor rare.





In a footnote to this statement, Codex makes the claim “In cases where
there are high levels of naturally occurring bacteria that are resistant
to the antibiotic, the likelihood of such bacteria transferring the
resistance to other bacteria will be orders of magnitude higher than the
likelihood of transfer between ingested foods and bacteria.”[4] Yet
while this may in fact be true the statement is still misleading. The
issue being discussed in the footnoted statement is the likelihood of
DNA transfer from GM plants to humans. Furthermore, if such events were
so unlikely, why would it be important not to use antibiotic resistant
gene technology in the future?

Another
concern presented in the section of “Foods Derived From Moderin
Biotechnology” dealing with GM plants is the question of potential
allergens being created within the food products as well as the
introduction of entirely new allergens that have never before existed in
nature.

While Codex claims that “all newly expressed proteins” as well as “a
protein new to the food supply” should be tested for safety, there are
legitimate questions as to whether or not Codex has the ability or the
desire to test for such possibilities. [5]

First, while it is quite possible to know what foods occurring naturally
are allergenic, it is much more difficult to come to these conclusions
about new substances or proteins. This is partly due to the fact that
naturally occurring materials have so many millions of years of history
and use which, in itself, tends to naturally weed out the allergenic
foods from the non-allergenic ones in a population’s diet. GM products
do not have this history.

Indeed, the idea that over time a population tends to form its own
guidelines through natural process adds to the ease in which scientific
inquiry may form knowledge of the food properties in relation to the
population itself. Again, this is not the case with GM food.

Therefore, another problem with the Codex Guidelines is made manifest.
Because Codex works on a global scale, the potential allergens are
listed globally and may not take into consideration (in future labeling)
the geographic concerns of individual populations. When one considers
the fact that allergens differ across geographic boundaries, with some
foods being allergenic in one culture but not in others, he/she is
confronted with the task that, in order to introduce a new substance
into the food supply with new proteins, all of these populations must be
tested separately. The tests of course should also be conducted over a
longer period of time to investigate prolonged exposure.

However, Codex makes no mention of this problem and, likewise, mentions
no remedy for it. Are we really supposed to believe that, hidden deep
within the Guidelines, Codex plans to organize representative samples of
every culture across the globe for every new protein added to the food
supply? This is not likely even if one believed the organization was
working truly promoting food safety.

Secondly,
Codex itself admits tremendous flaws in its ability to test for new
allergens. It says quite plainly that “there is no definitive test that
can be relied upon to predict allergic response in humans to a newly
expressed protein.”[6] Because of this lack of a standardized and easily
deciphered test, it goes on to say “A critical issue for testing will
be the availability of human sera from sufficient numbers of
individuals.”[7]

This, however, is a major problem due to the fact that in order to test
for just one allergy a minimum of eight sera is required for a major
allergy, and a minimum of twenty-four sera for a minor allergy.[8]

This is a rather large amount of material for testing purposes. It
should be noted that this is the required sera for just one test
subject. This test would have to be repeated hundreds and perhaps even
thousands of times per geographic region or culture. It would then have
to be replicated hundreds or thousands of times more on a global scale
to account for these regions and cultures.

Even Codex admits, albeit in a footnote, that “It is recognized that
these quantities of sera may not be available for testing purposes.”[9]

With this in mind, it is clear that testing for allergens in GM products
would prove extremely difficult to organize and conduct, even if Codex
were truly committed to its professed goal of food safety.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_20.html