Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 9

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 9







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

Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article entitled, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt.8”, I detailed the Codex Alimentarius position regarding Genetically Modified (GM) Micro-Organisms. Similarly, in several of the articles I have written recently, I have also discussed the Codex position on GM plants and other GM organisms.

Yet, no analysis of the Codex Alimentarius positions on GM food and/or
organisms would be complete without a discussion of the Codex position
on GM animals.

Indeed, the “Guideline For The Conduct Of Food Safety Assessment Of
Foods Derived From Recombinant-DNA Animals,” a subsection of the Codex
document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” is as interesting
for the concerns that it does not address as for the ones that it does.
Largely a copied and pasted version of the two sections before it,
(“Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived
from recombinant-dna plants” and “Guideline for the conduct of food
safety assessment Of foods produced using recombinant-dna
micro-organisms”) the GM animal Guidelines does not address some very
key issues such as:

1.) Animal welfare
2.) Ethical, moral and socio-economic aspects
3.) Environmental risks related to the environmental release of recombinant-DNA animals used in food production
4.) The safety of recombinant-DNA animals used as feed, or the
safety of animals fed with feed derived from recombinant-DNA animals,
plants and micro-organisms.[1]

As can be easily seen, these issues are extremely
important in their own right. Just the moral issues, in addition to the
hazards of the potential of GM animals being released into the
environment, are enough to fill volumes. However, Codex chooses not to
deal with these issues in its Guidelines.





With that being said, because Codex treats GM animals essentially the
same as GM plants, there is very little difference in the guidelines.
This shows a lack of scientific zeal as animals are fundamentally
different than plants.

Yet one area where Codex does address a different aspect of the GM
safety question is related to veterinary drug residues. It says,
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Some recombinant-DNA animals may exhibit traits that may result in the
potential for altered accumulation or distribution of xenobiotics (e.g.
veterinary drug residues, metals), which may affect food safety.
Similarly, the potential for altered colonization by and shedding of
human pathogens or new symbiosis with toxin-producing organisms in the
recombinant-DNA animal could have an effect on food safety.[2]</blockquote>
With its implicit admission of the instability of modified genes, Codex
now also admits that these genes, when changed in animals, could affect
the distribution and retention of veterinary drugs and other substances
which would necessarily change the content of the food product derived
from that animal. As Codex states, this same situation could also apply
to human pathogens as well as veterinary drugs.

As a side note, it appears that 2007-2008 was a very beneficial year for
GMO food producers. Not only were the pro-GM testing Guidelines
approved by Codex, but many countries, such as the European Union who
had been opposed to the introduction of GM food up to this point, began
changing their position to one that was slightly more open to GMO.

For
instance, in 2008, Codex Alimentarius approved Guidelines that would
allow low levels of GM products that have not been approved by the
countries’ regulatory agencies inside products that are imported into
the country. This would include products like grain, corn, and oats.
Codex claims that this set of standards merely recognizes the fact that
GM products will inadvertently mix with non-GM products during
processing and transportation and that it means to provide guidance in
this unavoidable situation.[3]

However, this presupposes that GM contamination of food shipments is
unavoidable when in fact just the opposite is the case. If GM products
were not used to begin with, the entire issue would not need to be
addressed.

Also, if countries that did not approve of GM products would simply
refuse to import them if they were contaminated with one single GM
organism, then the fact that the majority of people do not want GM food
would be driven home. This would be a great move for both the exporting
and importing countries in that GM would be made economically unfeasible
as well as forcing the importing country to produce their own food. It
may come as a surprise to many that these Guidelines were approved with
the consent of the European Union, the very state that has voiced much
dissent to GM products in the past. This is a clear signal that the
European Union, now that is has become even more integrated than it was
when the GM debate first appeared, is preparing to accept GM food on the
level of the United States in the future.

While these Guidelines only apply to GM contamination of imported food,
the European Union’s own guidelines have become much more relaxed in
relation to GM food production within its borders. It is here that the
various European countries are experiencing the tyranny of being a
member of a European super-state that undermines their national
sovereignty.

In March 2010, against the objections of countries such as Italy and
Austria, the European Union’s European Commission approved an antibiotic
resistant genetically modified potato.[4]

These countries who, before joining the EU, would have had complete
authority to block the importation and production of GM material now
must defer to the EU court and commission system that are clearly
undemocratic and unconcerned with the safety of the European people.

This is the same situation that occurred in 1998 when the European Union
approved the MON810 strain of GM maize developed by Monsanto against
the protest of several EU states.

Subsequently, several member nations banned the cultivation of the maize
which now pits them against the European Commission in an ongoing
battle for national sovereignty.[5]

However, sovereignty is not likely to win out.

In 2007, the European Court of Justice overturned Austria’s ban on
cultivation of GMO’s even though Austria has the broad support of its
people and other nations.

The
court also ruled that individual countries had no right to deny farmers
the ability to grow GM crops that the EU had previously approved. This
ruling has effectively removed Austria’s total cultivation ban. While
many other Austrian regulations are in place that will make it a little
more difficult for GMO production than in other countries, the European
Commission and Courts will likely continue to chip away at them little
by little.[6]

India has also relaxed its opposition to GM foods as evidenced, also in
2007, by the fact that the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests
announced that organisms that are not living (living being defined as an
organism capable of replication) will now be exempt from the existing
approval processes. This effectively allowed all “non-living organisms”
into India without any testing at all. This applied to a wide range of
products such as those containing GM corn or soy.[7]

It should also be mentioned that as of January 2009, the FDA has
announced that labeling of GM food animals is not required at the
consumer level.

While GM animals are required to be labeled while alive, when the
animals reach the food stage, the labeling requirements disappear. GM
animals are only required to be labeled at the food stage when there
appears to be a substantial difference in the food product.[8]

However, it should be remembered that, because the FDA works on an even
more relaxed version of substantial equivalence than Codex, it is
already assumed that these foods will not be significantly different
from a conventional counterpart.

Thus, we have unfettered access of GM animal food products to the food
supply with no way for the consumer to determine whether or not the
product he/she is eating has been genetically modified – a step which
the FDA and Codex Alimentarius have both worked so hard to reach in the
past.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_26.html