Showing posts with label ingredients. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ingredients. Show all posts

Thursday, July 9, 2015

American consumer, the law makers and the Science-A big cauldron waiting to boil over!

Though genetically modified foods are predominantly produced and marketed in the United States, most consumers are either unaware of it or are helpless to do any thing to stem this trend of overwhelming GMO containing foods. The safety or otherwise of GMO foods is still a matter that divides humanity into opposing camps, one section finding no fault with them while the others vehemently loathing them. The gravity of the problem can be realized from the fact that even among scientists there is no consensus on this issue and how can one blame the consumer to take a stand on this burning issue. Whatever it is, in the US of to day consumers have no choice but to accept foods made from GMO raw materials and ingredients unless one has the wherewithal to spend a fortune to switch over to 100% organic foods. The fight that is going on to day in that country centers around the so called constitutional right of the citizen to know what he is eating and for that what they are asking is to just declare on the label of products whether GMO ingredients are there or not in the food packet. A well reasoned demand though the industry, politicians and bureaucrats do not think so, obviously because of pecuniary considerations.

Look at the stand taken by the safety watch dogs in that country viz Food and Drug Administration and US Dept of Agriculture both of which considers genetically altered foods "practically" same as their natural counterparts and therefore felt there is no need to specifically mention about their presence in any food on the label. One is left with the impression that the US wants to be a unique country in swimming against international views on almost all issues, probably because of the arrogance of power, being the only super power left in the global landscape after the demise of erstwhile Soviet Union. Other wise it is difficult to explain why it is cocking a snook at 64 other countries which have made label declaration about GMO foods mandatory! Why is this happening in a country which is supposed to be the beacon for all democracies in the world? Obvious answer is the nexus among politicians, bureaucrats and industry lobbyists to deny the consumer his right and make unholy money for their own welfare!

A peep into the American situation will reveal this paradox. According to recent reports a fierce food fight is going on in the Congress over the labeling of genetically engineered foods.with a substantial section of the law makers trying to block any move to enforce mandatory labeling of GMO foods in any part of the country. Is it not a paradox that in a federal system of governance, where states enjoy high degree of freedom to legislate, their right is being usurped by the federal government through an insidious bill that will block the power of states to enact any law that will mandate compulsory labeling of GMO foods! Who are these law makers trying to help? Of course the GMO industry giants who have a stranglehold on the American economy through their close nexus with politicians. This attempt comes in the wake of three states already putting on the statute book law that requires labeling of foods marketed in their area. Attempts in the past by some big states like California to legislate on similar lines were frustrated by saturated misleading campaign by the GMO lobby pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the voters. 
.
The attempt to pass a law called "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" if passed asks for setting up a voluntary nationwide labeling system overseen by the federal government. This bill, popularly renamed by the consumer activist groups as "DARK Act", acronym for Deny All the Right to Know" Act! Protagonists of GMO foods invariably argue that about 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, meaning that the crops have been artificially altered to use less water or resist pests and no calamity has befallen in the country. Also other supporters cite the clearance given by The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization all of them who have deemed all GMOs on the market as safe. 
However a major chunk of the consumer community is not convinced fully about the safety of such foods because of the common perception that industry does not have the well being of the citizens in their mind, relentlessly pursuing efforts to increase their profits and the scandals surrounding presence of unsafe chemicals hormones, steroids, transfats,etc further reinforce their distrust about the products churned out by the manufacturers. 

At present there are no government-approved labels to let consumers in the U.S. know which foods are derived from GMOs.It is funny that the US Government wants to leave to individual manufacturers to make any label declaration to indicate that their products are free from GMO ingredients without taking any responsibility to verify such claims! That has prompted many companies to advertise their food as "Non-GMO" by taking the services of existing Non-GMO Project which is a private nonprofit outfit floated by retailers. The group is claimed to be testing food products and do product segregation practices to verify that products with its butterfly seal contain less than 1 percent GMO ingredients. Can it be a long term solution when millions of consumers expect their government to come to their rescue by overseeing such label claims to infuse confidence in such products? If mandatory labeling is anathema to the political class which runs the country, least they can do is to set up a dedicated authority to verify claims of manufacturers that their products are free from GMO substances.Will this happen?  Depends on the intensity of struggle by the consumers on the government to sensitize them on this critical issue.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Monday, June 24, 2013

COMPULSORY LABELING OF GM FOODS-AN UNENDING AND UNEQUAL FIGHT!

The eternal debate about the safety and environmental problems associated with production and consumption of genetically modified foods seems to be getting more and more vitiated with both protagonists and antagonists taking up extreme positions unlikely to be reconciled in the foreseeable future. Both sides have marshaled their own "facts, figures and fictions" to score over the other side. What is missing in this monologue between the two sparring parties is utter disregard for the right of citizens to know what he or she is eating from a sealed food packet! Though many countries have either banned or restricted the use of GM food ingredients in consumable products marketed within their borders, there is a single exception, that is the US which refuses to recognize that GM foods may not be 100% safe and acceptable. It is sad that more than 80% of the food products in the US market do contain one or more of GM ingredients and shockingly this happens without the consumer ever knowing about the same. The present President of the US does not seem to be in a hurry, if at all he has any intention, to even mandate the industry to at least declare the presence of GM ingredients, if used, on the front of the pack label.

It is to break this inertia on the part of the federal government that a progressive state like California, due to the prodding of consumer activists took the ballot initiative for discerning the views of the citizens in the first week of November last year. In a puzzling development the results were completely shocking with slightly more than 50% of those who voted not finding it necessary to label food packets containing GM ingredients! This was in contrast to the findings of early sample survey studies which found that more than 80% wanted to make such declaration mandatory in the state. What turned the tide, according to dispassionate observers, was the false and misleading campaign by the perpetrators of GM technology involving more than $ 45 million expenditure to influence the thinking of the citizens and con them to vote against the proposal.This should be a lesson for all others regarding the financial and political clout of the GM lobby, fighting against whom may be a Herculean task.

The failure of the California ballot initiative that would have mandated labeling of genetically modified foods may not be a death knell for those seeking nationwide labeling because they pin their hope on President Obama as he is seen to be supportive of labeling. Still, efforts to force changes at a federal level could face an uphill climb because only a ballot victory at least in one of the states can trigger action at the federal level. There are new such state labeling initiatives which are planned for Washington state and Oregon. Antagonists are sparing no efforts to force change at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has primary regulatory oversight for food and food additives. A citizen's petition is pending with the agency demanding a re-examination of its policy against labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. More than one million people signed on making it a record as the most ever for a petition to the FDA. Probably the Californian ballot initiative did make more people aware of the issues surrounding GM foods.  If recent reports are any indication most average folks are well educated about this issue. 

To add strength to the campaign for forcing GM food producers to declare use of GM ingredients on the front of the pack label many organic and natural food companies, environmental and consumer groups have joined the movement recently and the issue cannot be ignored that easily any more. According to the strategists spear heading the action program filing of the petition in October 2011 was the first step which would be followed by a federal law suit against the FDA. The California measure, had it been approved would have provided leverage for the federal effort and therefore the 53 percent to 47 percent defeat in progressive California is considered a setback. The crux of the matter is that the American food , Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 is being too narrowly interpreted by FDA and treats modern-day GMO technology in a way that does not comply with the intent of the law to protect consumers. Genetically modified crops, which have had their DNA spliced with genetic material from other species, have been around for 16 years. Popular biotech crops can survive treatments of weedkiller and are toxic to insects that feed on the crops. And most processed foods sold in the United States contain some GMO corn, soybeans or other crops. The petition by the activists calls on the FDA to declare that molecular or genetic alterations are "material" changes relevant to consumers. 

The FDA's current policy, set in 1992, holds that foods derived from genetically modified plants were "substantially" equivalent to those produced through conventional means. The combination of FDA's failure to mandate pre-market safety testing and its permissive labeling policy has meant that silent changes to the food supply are tested on the public without their knowledge. Most members in the scientific community are frustrated because the industry and regulators are disregarding numerous studies showing harmful impacts from GMO crops. It was only recently that more than 70 scientists, academic researchers and professors declared that "corporate influence" was stifling research that finds negative implications connected with GMOs and they further aver that labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when. Against such a sordid background there is a silver lining which heralds a new beginning for those fighting against GM foods and that is the overwhelming legislature support for a law in the tiny state, Connecticut, mandating the industry to compulsorily declare on the label presence GM ingredients in the food products manufactured and marketed within the state. Probably other states will also promulgate such laws that can have a snow balling effect at the federal level.