[CTRL] SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GE FOOD LABELLING
-Caveat Lector- Original Message Follows From: Grassroots Media Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: GE: SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GE FOOD LABELLING, agnet edited Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:15:40 -0500 (CDT) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GENETIC FOOD LABELLING Oct. 6, 1999 Ontario Corn Producers Association Some farm organizations have now joined those calling for the mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, even when nutritionally identical to traditional products. These calls are based on the assumption that if consumers know what s in food and are properly informed, then most will readily accept the new technology - indeed purchase genetically enhanced (GE) products preferentially. It s interesting how this perspective clashes with that of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Council of Canadians and other anti-biotech groups who see mandatory labelling as a means of eliminating GE food items from the marketplace entirely. European experience shows that the latter approach works, with food retailers and manufacturers having chosen to avoid usage of GE ingredients entirely (or so they say), rather than risk having their genetically modified food labelled as Frankenfood by the activists. Farm organizations committed to a label and inform strategy also seem to overlook the role of the media who are not so interested in informing as in fostering controversy. Anyone who has watched or listened to coverage by the (publicly funded) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in recent months knows that balanced coverage is not a primary goal. But lost in all of this has been a fundamental question - if you re going to label GE food (even if it s nutritionally identical to other foods), then what do you label? The activists and pro-labelling farm groups say, do what the Europeans are doing. But it s obvious that none of them have examined European practices critically. For to do so would reveal that European labelling requirements are targeted almost exclusively (and conveniently) at genetic enhancements to corn, soybeans and canola - especially those enhanced products coming from North America. By contrast, the Europeans have carefully excluded their own forms of genetic modification. Take European barley as an example. The majority of European production, including (we re told) almost all malting varieties (used to make beer, whisky - including premium malt whiskies made exclusively from barley), are the product of mutation breeding, where barley plants are bombarded with nuclear radiation, and/or chemical mutagens such as mustard gas. European plant breeding literature is very open on the technology and its consequences: the mutagens used are virtually all powerful carcinogens, they create genes which do not exist in nature, and create other genetic damage which is not necessarily apparent to the plant breeder. Yet foods made with this are considered natural in Europe, and not subject to genetically modified labelling under European rules. Premium Glenlivet whisky made from nuked, or carcinogen- enhanced European barley? It s not labelled. The contrast with genetically modified corn, soybeans and canola, where the changes involve insertion of known, natural genes from common garden and other food plants, or from safe natural, organic pesticides, could not be more distinct. But the products made from these must be labelled in Europe, presumably with the full knowledge by European authorities that this will mean displacement of imported North American ingredients by those from European crops such as barley - the products of radiation- damaged or mustard-gas-mutated seeds. Major Japanese brewers, have recently announced plans to eliminate use of genetically modified corn, but not of Japanese- grown barley - though mutation breeding has been as prevalent in Japan as in Europe - is another example of the same hypocrisy. But the shell game extends well beyond European barley, to many other artificially mutated European crops - for the Europeans have been big on mutation breeding - and to many other foods. A large percentage of British cheese is made using, and contains, a curdling enzyme, chymosin, made by genetically modified E. coli bacteria. Indeed, at least one manufacturer has promoted the fact that this is an environmentally friendly substitute for traditional rennit taken from dead calf stomachs. But this genetically modified food bears no labelling requirement in Europe. The same applies for many other food additives - most (if not all) organic acids used as flavour enhancers, for example. No labelling required in Europe. Aspartame used as a non caloric sweetener in thousands of diet drinks and foods - in Europe as in North America - is made by genetically modified organisms. No labelling required. The list goes on and on. European governments have no apparent interest in changing a practice of labelling deception which has come to serve as an excellent
Re: [CTRL] SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GE FOOD LABELLING
-Caveat Lector- Is this the same organization that Hillary Clinton supports through contributions to their area that produces X, XX and XXX films as a art form? Films that have "lesbians" (actually sadists, the homosexuals that I have known have had manners as good as many heterosexuals) talk about why they aren't going to kill their lovers yet! The Pied Piper Joe Feck wrote: -Caveat Lector- Original Message Follows From: Grassroots Media Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: GE: SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GE FOOD LABELLING, agnet edited Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:15:40 -0500 (CDT) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ABOUT GENETIC FOOD LABELLING Oct. 6, 1999 Ontario Corn Producers Association Some farm organizations have now joined those calling for the mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, even when nutritionally identical to traditional products. These calls are based on the assumption that if consumers know what s in food and are properly informed, then most will readily accept the new technology - indeed purchase genetically enhanced (GE) products preferentially. It s interesting how this perspective clashes with that of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Council of Canadians and other anti-biotech groups who see mandatory labelling as a means of eliminating GE food items from the marketplace entirely. European experience shows that the latter approach works, with food retailers and manufacturers having chosen to avoid usage of GE ingredients entirely (or so they say), rather than risk having their genetically modified food labelled as Frankenfood by the activists. Farm organizations committed to a label and inform strategy also seem to overlook the role of the media who are not so interested in informing as in fostering controversy. Anyone who has watched or listened to coverage by the (publicly funded) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in recent months knows that balanced coverage is not a primary goal. But lost in all of this has been a fundamental question - if you re going to label GE food (even if it s nutritionally identical to other foods), then what do you label? The activists and pro-labelling farm groups say, do what the Europeans are doing. But it s obvious that none of them have examined European practices critically. For to do so would reveal that European labelling requirements are targeted almost exclusively (and conveniently) at genetic enhancements to corn, soybeans and canola - especially those enhanced products coming from North America. By contrast, the Europeans have carefully excluded their own forms of genetic modification. Take European barley as an example. The majority of European production, including (we re told) almost all malting varieties (used to make beer, whisky - including premium malt whiskies made exclusively from barley), are the product of mutation breeding, where barley plants are bombarded with nuclear radiation, and/or chemical mutagens such as mustard gas. European plant breeding literature is very open on the technology and its consequences: the mutagens used are virtually all powerful carcinogens, they create genes which do not exist in nature, and create other genetic damage which is not necessarily apparent to the plant breeder. Yet foods made with this are considered natural in Europe, and not subject to genetically modified labelling under European rules. Premium Glenlivet whisky made from nuked, or carcinogen- enhanced European barley? It s not labelled. The contrast with genetically modified corn, soybeans and canola, where the changes involve insertion of known, natural genes from common garden and other food plants, or from safe natural, organic pesticides, could not be more distinct. But the products made from these must be labelled in Europe, presumably with the full knowledge by European authorities that this will mean displacement of imported North American ingredients by those from European crops such as barley - the products of radiation- damaged or mustard-gas-mutated seeds. Major Japanese brewers, have recently announced plans to eliminate use of genetically modified corn, but not of Japanese- grown barley - though mutation breeding has been as prevalent in Japan as in Europe - is another example of the same hypocrisy. But the shell game extends well beyond European barley, to many other artificially mutated European crops - for the Europeans have been big on mutation breeding - and to many other foods. A large percentage of British cheese is made using, and contains, a curdling enzyme, chymosin, made by genetically modified E. coli bacteria. Indeed, at least one manufacturer has promoted the fact that this is an environmentally friendly substitute for traditional rennit taken from dead calf stomachs. But this genetically modified food bears no labelling requirement in Europe. The same applies for many other
