FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The FDA and Frankenfoods

by JEFF DEASY

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent enforcement letters warning food makers that they cannot label their products as free of genetically modified or genetically engineered ingredients.

The letters were sent as a heated debate is taking place over whether the agency should approve a genetically engineered (GE) salmon that grows at twice the rate of salmon in the wild.

Sarah Alexander of the nonprofit Food & Water Watch says, “The FDA has a flawed process for approving these GE salmon and unfortunately for us, the process isn’t focused on what happens to people who eat genetically engineered animals. If the FDA moves forward, these salmon would be the first GE animals approved for human consumption.”

An article in the Washington Post quotes Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. She said, “The public wants to know and the public has a right to know. I think the agency has discretion, but it’s under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”

The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists states on its web site:

So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment…In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify.

Shades of the rBGH Milk Controversy

The FDA previously warned companies that they could not label products as hormone free. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., one of the first companies to label its ice cream as free of the synthetic hormone rBGH, joined a national campaign that included Stonyfield Farm and Organic Valley to block that effort.

According to the ice cream maker’s web site, “We’re still working to oppose the use of rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone given to cows to increase their milk production. We believe rBGH is an unnecessary technology that causes increased health risks to cows.”

The Concern About rBGH Dangers is International

Many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union have banned rBGH due to health risks. According to Jeffrey M. Smith, the author of “Seeds of Deception” and “Genetic Roulette”, milk from cows given rBGH have much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. The milk also has a lower nutritional value, leads to increased use of antibiotics, and more pus from infected udders.

Mr. Smith cites a statement from Fredrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, former Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission, “We feel fairly confident in being able to demonstrate that the safety of European citizens who consume [rBGH] products cannot be guaranteed.”

GE Labeled Food Unlikely to Appeal to Consumers

Many believe the biotechnology industry does not want genetically engineered food labeled as such because consumers do not want to buy it. There doesn’t seem to be a single company that has voluntarily labeled its products as genetically engineered.

Among the recent enforcement letters, one company was told a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” implied that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food and could not be used.

Many people are unaware that they are regularly consuming GE foods because they are not labeled. As Elise Pearlstein, producer of the Oscar nominated film Food Inc. has said, “It’s outrageous that genetically modified foods don’t need to be labeled…Whatever your position, you should have the right to make informed choices, and we don’t.”

GE Foods Are Not the Answer to World Hunger

As for the claim that GM foods are needed to feed a hungry world, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program has concluded “…that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields.” And a major study conducted at the University of Kansas has found that the controversial technology actually reduces crop yields.

In May of 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”

JEFF DEASY is found of American Feast.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail