Codex Committee: few realize they are eating genetically modified foods

[Mark]

With no labeling, few realize they are eating genetically modified foods

Some consumers are concerned that such foods may pose health risks and say manufacturers should be required to identify them for consumers

When a team of activists wearing white hazmat suits showed up at a Chicago grocery store to protest the sale of genetically modified foods, they picked an unlikely target: Whole Foods Market.

Organic foods, by definition, can't knowingly contain genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs. But genetically modified corn, soy and other crops have become such common ingredients in processed foods that even one of the nation's top organic food retailers says it hasn't been able to avoid stocking some products that contain them.

"No one would guess that there are genetically engineered foods right here in Whole Foods," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, which organized the protest. The activists dramatically trashed a battery of well-known health food brands outside the store, including Tofutti, Kashi and Boca Burgers.

Though people have been modifying foodstuffs through selective breeding and other methods for centuries, genetically modified crops differ in that the plants grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. In this way, the crop can be made to withstand a weed-killing pesticide, for example, or incorporate a bacterial toxin that can repel pests.

Some consumers are concerned that such changes may pose health risks and say manufacturers should be required to prove GMOs are safe for human consumption before putting them on the market. They also say products containing genetically modified ingredients should be identified for the consumer; the U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that does not require such labeling or testing.

Industry representatives say that GMOs are safe and that labeling them is unnecessary, citing a 1992 statement from the FDA saying the agency had no reason to believe GMOs "differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." No mainstream regulatory organization in the U.S. has opposed the introduction of GMOs.

"FDA has the scientific and nutrition expertise to establish food labeling and to assess food safety," said Ab Basu, the Biotechnology Industry Organization's acting executive vice president for food and agriculture. "You can look at the FDA website and see that if the corn is substantially equivalent to corn produced conventionally, there is no reason to label it as being any different."

Critics of the technology say they are concerned not only about possible health risks but also about soil and plant nutrient losses, contamination of non-GMO crops and increased pesticide use.

With an unprecedented number of genetically modified crops being greenlighted by the Obama administration in recent months amid public debate — including ethanol corn, alfalfa and sugar beets under certain conditions — some advocates say the issues may be reaching the awareness of consumers beyond the health-conscious shoppers who frequent Whole Foods.

They cite polls taken by the Pew Center, Consumers Union and Harris Interactive over the last decade that have consistently found the vast majority of Americans would like to see genetically modified foods better regulated and labeled.

"If companies say genetic engineering is fine, then OK let's label it and let the consumers make their own decisions," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, which produces Consumer Reports. "That's what all the free market supporters say. So let's let the market work properly."

Michael Jacobsen, executive director for Center for Science in the Public Interest, which does not oppose GMOs, says many manufacturers see labeling as too risky. "No food company would use GMOs if they had to label them because there is no benefit to the companies," he said. "The term GMO has become a toxic term, and so if a company figures they will lose maybe 2 percent of their sales why should they? It's all loss for them."

In fact, a 2006 study for the Pew Initiative for Food and Biotechnology found that only 23 percent of women (the primary shopping decision makers) thought genetically modified foods were safe.

But knowledge on this topic also remains low. The same Pew study found that only 26 percent of American consumers believed they'd ever eaten genetically modified food, while a 2010 survey by the International Food Information Council reported that only 28 percent of respondents knew such foods were sold in stores.

Currently 14 states have introduced legislation on GMO labeling but most of it has not moved out of committee, including an Illinois bill introduced in February by Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago. She says she plans to reintroduce it next session. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

On the issue of safety, both sides of the debate come armed with research. This year Spanish researchers published an overview of GMO food safety studies in Environment International, finding that peer-reviewed studies had found health risks and no health risks in roughly equal numbers. The paper notes, however, that many studies finding no risks were sponsored by the biotech industry or associates.

Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion is supposed to remove it from the body. "Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed," they wrote in Reproductive Toxicology.

As the biggest producer of GMO seeds and the compatible pesticide Roundup, Missouri-based Monsanto is at the heart of the GMO debate. Monsanto would not make a representative available for an interview but did offer a statement on the lack of long-term animal or human safety studies on genetically modified crops.

"Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that (the current) approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the genetically modified crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts," the statement said. "This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans or animals in order to establish food safety."

While the Food and Drug Administration has allowed the sale and planting of genetically modified foods for 15 years, it has never required premarket safety evaluations of the foods.

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety," the FDA wrote in a statement to the Tribune, noting that manufacturers are encouraged to consult with the agency about their products.

Used in an estimated 70 percent of all American processed food, genetically modified crops make up 93 percent of all soy, 86 percent of all corn and 93 percent of all canola seeds planted in the U.S., which makes stocking only non-GMO products difficult, said Joe ****son, quality standards coordinator for Whole Foods Market.

"Until there's federal government mandated labeling of GMO ingredients, there's no way to tell if packaged products contain GMO ingredients," ****son said. "Our approach is to work in the spirit of partnership with our suppliers … to encourage them to take active steps to avoid GMO ingredients."

Basu notes that GMO crops have been embraced by farmers in many countries — although not in Japan, Europe or Britain — and cites an International Food Information Council study that found 68 percent of those surveyed believe that FDA's current labeling practices are sufficient.

"If you look at the adoption of biotech by over 24 countries and over 2 billion acres of biotech crops globally that have been grown in the last 15 years of commercialization, consumers are buying these products," he said.

Still, Nielsen announced last year that "non-GMO" was the fastest-growing health and wellness claim on store-brand foods in 2009, up by 67 percent from the previous year and representing $60.2 million in sales.

And 2010 brought a new "Non-GMO Project Verified" seal, offering third-party certification that less than 0.9 percent of the ingredients in the product came from genetically modified organisms. More than 4,000 products — including all Whole Foods store brands — have been enrolled in the program, according to executive director Megan Westgate.

Shoppers at Whole Foods last week were conflicted about whether the store should be selling genetically modified foods. But the majority said they were surprised to find it did.

"It's disappointing and disheartening. I feel like Whole Foods has established itself as a community for people who believe in healthy food and I feel like they embody that. So I would think that they would uphold standards and prevent foods like this from being sold here," said Melissa Hayes, of Chicago.

"But I don't think it's fair to just blame Whole Foods," she added. "I think it's equally important for the consumer to take an active role and find out information on GMOs and Monsanto. Every time you make a purchase it's a vote and people just need to be more conscious and aware."

http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-gmo-food-labeling--20110524,0,3802216.story

If you want to avoid GMOs



Several shopping guides have been published in recent years offering vetted lists of products that do or don't contain biotech ingredients. They include the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, the Greenpeace Shoppers Guide and an iPhone app from the Non-GMO Project.

They also offer general guidance on avoiding GMO foods, including:

•Look for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, which is the only third-party-tested verification program in the U.S.

•Choose certified organic foods, which cannot contain genetically modified ingredients or feed (for animals) as part of their certification.

•The most common genetically modified crops are field corn (used for grain, processed food ingredients and animal feed), soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, wheat, rice and flax, although the last three are not yet commercially grown.

•These crops often are added to processed foods as oils, sweeteners and soy proteins but also can be part of amino acids, aspartame, ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate, vitamin C, citric acid, sodium citrate, ethanol, flavorings (natural and artificial), hydrolyzed vegetable protein, lactic acid, maltodextrins, microbial growth media, molasses, monosodium glutamate, sucrose, textured vegetable protein, xantham gum, vitamins and yeast products, according to the Non-GMO Project.

•Unless sugar is labeled as pure cane or organic, it likely contains sugar from genetically modified sugar beets.

•Most fresh produce is GMO-free except Hawaiian papaya, crookneck squash, zucchini and a small percentage of sweet corn.

Whole Foods and Trader Joe's say all their store brand items are sourced from non-GMO foods.

[Mark]

Codex Commission – Voluntary GMO Labeling Okay with WTO?

The new Codex Alimentarius agreement coming out of the latest Codex Commission meeting assures us that if any country decides to voluntarily label GMO foods, it can do so without the threat of World Trade Organization (WTO) legal challenges. In other words, because we want to know what is in our food, and enough pressure has been put on governments to label these toxic substances, the United Nations graciously consents to allow such labeling without fear of global retribution via the WTO. Now isn’t that special!

“In a striking reversal of their previous position, on Tuesday, during the annual Codex summit in Geneva, the US delegation dropped its opposition to the GM labeling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.” (Consumers International)

rest: http://farmwars.info/?p=6408

[Mark]

Codex Committee: “You Can’t Tell People that Food Prevents Disease!”

Not even nutrient-related disease! Our executive director’s gripping report from the front lines.

As we discussed last week, ANH-USA represented US consumers at the international Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, which met last week in Germany. Our executive director, Gretchen DuBeau, reports that the committee made a number of decisions that may well affect natural health in the US.

Here in the US, we have been debating various issues concerning natural health: Will we retain access to a wide variety of dietary supplements in high-nutrient-level dosages? Will we be able to access nutritious, healthy foods, or will selection and quality diminish because of industry or government control? Will we finally achieve mandatory labeling for GMOs? We naturally think that, if we are able to convince our policymakers, our rights will be protected. But we could be wrong. We have to keep a close eye on what happens overseas too.

Codex, which was established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is creating international guidelines for member nations to follow. And while these guidelines are supposed to be voluntary, it is conceivable that our country’s food policies could be overridden by international trade law. At the very least, the wrong international guidelines won’t make it easier to keep the right ones here.

One of the most significant outcomes from this meeting would have the effect of squelching free speech even further.  In relation to principles underlying food fortification for the prevention of diet-related illness, the committee members emphasized that language indicating that food prevents disease is forbidden and they are opposed to claims that may “mislead”—even if the claim is true. Happily, the US delegation disagreed, and said that while the US has similar policies about food claims, by definition the nutrients in food prevent nutrient-related diseases! The Botswana delegation agreed with us, pointing out that iodine prevents goiter, so therefore nutrients do prevent disease, yet Botswana nevertheless reinforced the ban.

This is at the heart of ANH’s work. We are here to educate consumers about the role that food, supplements (including nutraceuticals), and lifestyle play in optimizing health. And now we are seeing the beginning of international policy preventing health claims related to natural health products and foods. It’s difficult to educate consumers when international leaders are forbidding the discussion!

In another extremely troubling decision, the Codex Committee adopted extremely low Nutrient Reference Values for labeling purposes—that is, the intake levels of essential nutrients deemed adequate to meet most people’s minimal nutritional needs. They are roughly equivalent to our “Recommended Dietary Allowances,” in that RDAs indicate the daily dietary intake level of a nutrient considered sufficient by the Food and Nutrition Board to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy individuals in each life-stage and gender group. These new NRVs are far too low to be effective at preventing disease, according to most natural health experts, with even higher nutrient values needed to optimize health—though it was stressed that the actual values weren’t important because they are “just for labeling purposes.”

The committee also adopted single values—what some supposed “average healthy person” might need. And of course that doesn’t work! Children, young people, men, women (with different needs if pregnant), the elderly, and people with a multitude of nutrient deficiencies or excesses, food sensitivities, dietary needs, and illnesses—each would need a very different dosage. So we would advocate a range of values, which can take into account bioindividuality—the “systems biology” approach that considers the great variability in individuals’ genetic backgrounds.

Also under discussion were NRVs associated with reduced incidence of non-communicable diet-related diseases, or NRVs-NCD. Regarding those, the committee said, “Governments are encouraged to use the NRVs-NCD, or alternatively, consider the suitability of the general principles below, including the level of evidence required… in establishing their own reference values for labeling purposes for nutrients associated with diet-related non-communicable diseases.” In other words: member countries should adopt these standards precisely, or at least follow our guidelines if you need to tweak them to your needs.

Did you see that phrase, “including the level of evidence required”? At least here we find an upside: the committee proposed a broader scientific standard than the one it had been using previously. Instead of the “gold standard” of random-controlled trials (RCTs), both WHO and FAO now use something called the GRADE system, which takes into consideration all levels of evidence, including clinical, giving more weight to evidence that is more conclusive. And Codex is inclined to agree with this broader standard. This is extremely positive, as natural health products rarely have patent protection and therefore cannot afford hundreds of millions of dollars for RCTs, but may have an abundance of clinical evidence.

Of course, everyone’s big question is harmonization on supplements—that is, whether the US will accept the limits Codex creates for supplements (in terms of dosages and product availability). Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer to that one. The US delegation made it clear that our country intends to stay flexible—to create our own standards and use our own science, indicating no intention to harmonize at this time. Legally, we are not bound to harmonize. But we are subject to World Trade Organization (WTO) sanctions should conflicting national policy creates trade disputes.

This is unlikely to be an issue, but there have already been conflicts. For example, in 1985 the European Union enacted a ban on the production and importation of meat derived from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones. In 1989, the EU banned the import of US beef produced with growth-promoting hormones, dramatically reducing beef exports to the EU. In 1996, the US claimed that the EU ban adversely affected trade and because their standards exceeded those set by Codex, the WTO should intervene. It did, and a WTO panel ruled in the US’s favor, allowing the US to begin collecting tariffs on $116.8 million worth of imports from the EU—the amount that it lost each year due to the ban.

In other words, while a country may not be obligated to adopt a Codex standard into domestic law, international trade pressures, especially from powerful countries, could create pressure to do so. This is a particular threat when it comes to dietary supplements. Although the US may be able to maintain access to high level nutrients in its supplements, much of the rest of the world will not. And the weight of a standard accepted by 185 countries is almost certain to give determined anti-supplement legislators like Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) reasons, at some point, to introduce a new bill to harmonize.

Of further concern is the fact that Codex is creating principles for food fortification—adding folic acid or calcium to food—which, as we’ve reported, can in some cases be dangerous. For example, it is dangerous to fortify with calcium without any of the essential co-factors. In addition, this is a band-aid approach to treating nutrient deficiencies instead of focusing on the real problem. We need to address farming practices that are destroying the nutrient content of soil and leading to less nutritious food.

What about GMOs (genetically modified organisms)? Europe is not friendly to GMO, so could we gain some ground there? If this meeting is any indication, the answer is likely to be No. The issue of banning GMOs in children’s cereals was quickly dismissed because of a “lack of science” supporting the claim that GMOs are dangerous. We noted that there were dozens of “experts” in the room ready to support GMO.

Here again we have the international trade dispute problem to consider: If state bills requiring GMO labeling were to pass, and it eventually became federal law, and Codex prohibited such labeling, there would absolutely be a WTO dispute and the international standard would be hard to beat.

This meeting revealed the usual problem of the infiltration of special interests. This threatens to outweigh what appears to be positive intent on the part of many participating in the process. The underlying—and most relevant—question is, “Who benefits from harmonized standards on everything from infant formula to fortification of foods?” Answer: the largest companies in the world. Their interests are represented here, but the consumers of the world are not. The tagline on many Codex documents is “safe, good food for everyone,” but the point that was stressed over and over again at this meeting is that “we are here to facilitate trade.”

As Codex continues through its creation and approval process, it is taking on a life of its own that, despite the current intent of the US to maintain independence, may meet us at our front door and demand entrance.

http://www.anh-usa.org/codex-committee/