November 12, 2007
Today was the first full day of work for the good men and women who attend the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) and they are, at least for the most part, hard working, honest people who have been bamboozled.
The Report (from the Ad Hoc Committee on Foods Derived from Biotechnology about genetically modified (GM) plants which have been modified to produce nutrient(s) or related substance(s)) that we are reviewing right now in the Codex meeting is very, very interesting and very, very disturbing — but may ultimately be quite useful in the US and elsewhere. For example, although the US, via the FDA, has declared administratively, not scientifically, and in the absence of any testing to determine the truth of its position (or the safety of genetically modified [GM] foods) that GM foods and natural foods are equivalent and GM foods are safe. They refuse to do any safety testing to back up this dangerous – and potentially lethal – assertion. My assumption, of course, is that testing is the last thing they would want because it would show how very dangerous GM food actually are.
In this Report, curiously specific to “foods modified for nutritional or health benefits”, it is clearly stated in Section 1.1 that this document “does not cover assessment of the benefits themselves” but (Section 1.2) “the [GM] trait is a result of i) introduction of a new nutrient(s) or related substance(s), or ii) alteration of either the quantity or bioavailability of a nutrient(s) or related substance(s), iii) removal or reduction of undesirable substance(s) (e.g., allergens or toxicants), or iv) alteration of the interaction(s) of nutritional or health relevance of these substances.” Whew! Sounds like we could do with a little “assessment of the benefits themselves” before we go messing with the food and nutrient supply.
Oh, yes, for those of you in the US or eating US foods and taking US nutrients: under US law, it is not legal to introduce a new or novel Dietary Ingredient which was not in use before June, 1994 without extensive testing. Whoops! The US Delegate, Dr. Barbara Schneeman (FDA head of Office of Dietary Supplements). did not think fit to mention that, therefore, this Codex provision violates US law in several ways and so cannot be subject to FDA’s announced penchant for “HARMonized” regulations. So unsafe/untested foods could then be marketed in the US which violate US law because they introduce novel nutrients, although the benefit of doing so has not been evaluated or studied. Yummy! Sounds like food safety to me. NOT! So if the US “HARMonizes” with this standard, as it has said it will do, illegal foods could be marketed in the US with the knowing acquiescence of the US FDA!
Next in the list of Wonder Words produced for the “Guidance of the world community” is the following (Section 3.6) “Foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants modified for nutritional or health benefits may benefit certain populations/sub populations, while other populations/sub populations may be at risk from the same food.”
Hang on there! The US FDA assures us that all GM foods are exactly identical to their non GM counterparts. Exactly. There is no difference whatsoever. So how can some populations be at risk from them? In fact, in a statement taken from the FDA website, we read, “The 1992 policy is based on existing food law, and requires that genetically engineered [GM – REL] foods meet the same rigorous safety standards as is required of all other foods. The law places a responsibility on producers and sellers to offer only safe products to consumers, and provides FDA with the legal tools for enforcement.” It is worth asking, though, if the FDA forbids the labeling of GM foods (except raw produce which carries a little oval tag with an identification number starting with the number 8) how such enforcement could be carried out when traceability, and therefore liability, is totally impossible if the food is not labeled with the strain of GM foods it contains. Do you feel safe yet?
But back to the issue at hand: if Codex acknowledges that these GM foods ARE different and the US says they are not, what happens next? Can the US use its might to force a change at the Codex Commission level? We shall see. Can the World Trade Organization force the US to identify those foods which are GM because Codex says that they are different? Can the US policy of refusing to label GM foods be challenged in court? In the World Court? In the World Trade Organization? Through a Consumer-initiated class action suit?
Moving right along, Section 3.7 notes “Rather than trying to identify every hazard associated with a particular food,…
[Hazard? Maybe foods should have upper dose limits assessed through Risk Assessment: for example, “That’s one too many Brussels sprouts, my fine young bucko! Risk assessment shows that the sulfur contained in 6 sprouts can help detoxify mercury stored in the brain – that could be a risk because you might not be able to get rid of that mercury floating around so you can only eat 5 of them!” REL]
… the intention of a safety assessment of food derived from recombinant-DNA plants is the identification of new or altered hazards relative to the conventional counterpart….
[Now hang on there once again: the US FDA, which we all know is working in our best interests, not for the good of industry, right? {after all, Dr. Schneeman personally told me on Saturday that it should be the goal of the FDA to protect the consumer} says that there ARE no risks and hazards associated with GM food. IF there were, FDA could not approve GM foods as if they were identical to foods that have not been modified. Yet Codex is saying that there may be new or altered hazards in GM foods compared to natural foods. What’s wrong here? Has reality, coming from the unlikely source of a Codex Report, come face to face with administrative fantasy engaged in by the FDA for the benefit of the Biotech industry? Imagine that! ]
The paragraph goes on to state, “Since recombinant-DNA plants modified for nutritional or health benefits
[assumed, not established, as pointed out before -REL] result in food products with a composition that may be significantly different from their conventional counterparts [sorry to break in again, but what did we just hear? “May be significantly different from their conventional counterparts”? But the FDA says it has already decided, without the science to back it up, that GM foods are NOT significantly different from their counterparts and, for that reason GM FOODS MAY NOT BE LABELED AS SUCH IN THE US SINCE CONSUMERS WOULD MAKE THE “MISTAKE” OF REJECTING GM FOODS IF THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE GM FOODS. It doesn’t sound like such a mistake to me when you read that Codex says that they may be significantly different and may have hazards that regular foods don’t.]
Moving right along, “the choice of an appropriate comparator is of great importance for the safety assessment addressed in this Annex [the US, of course, says that no safety assessment is needed since GM foods are the same as non GM foods so the concept of a “comparator has no meaning if you accept the US position. REL]. Those alterations identified in a plant modified to obtain nutritional or health benefits are the subject of this safety assessment.” [So these plants need safety assessment in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, but not the US. OK. Got it! REL]
But if that were not quite bad enough, consider this little bit of madness: Section 3.11 says, “With conventional fortification of food, typically a nutrient or a related substance is added at controlled concentrations and its chemical form is characterized. Levels of plant nutrients or related substances may vary in both conventionally bred and recombinant-DNA plants due to growing conditions. In addition, more than one chemical form of the nutrient might be expressed in the food as a result of the [genetic] modification and these may not be characterized from a nutritional perspective.” [Emphasis added – REL]
Whoa! So unknown versions of the chemicals we call nutrients could be produced and we are supposed to eat them? Just like we are supposed to use patentable but dangerous hormones which science has shown to cause cancer, stroke, blood clots, Alzheimer’s Disease, Heart Disease and high profits for the owners of the patents instead of low profit, un-patentable bio-identical hormones which are not associated with these disease states? In a biologically active compound, a change in a single molecule can mean the difference between toxic/deadly and nutritional/health promoting. These GM plants are producing God-knows-what version of what might be a nutrient and might be a poison and we are supposed to eat it and feed it to our children? Are you still feeling safe?
The report continues, “Where appropriate, information may be needed on the different chemical forms of the nutrient(s) or related substance(s) expressed in the portion of the plant intended for food use and their respective levels.” MAY be needed? Well, yes, I rather tend to think so, don’t you? There are unknown hazards from eating chemicals that have never before been produced on this planet and it MAY be advisable or appropriate to get some information on them? Of course, the FDA doesn’t think so. How safe should we feel?
Section 3. 12 makes the point that the bioavailability of these “nutrients” should be established. A good point, because modified substances may not have any nutrient value or may be downright toxic. Who knows? Not even the Shadow knows! Yet the item says that that bioavailability should be established, where appropriate as if it might not be an absolute necessity! My safety meter is pegging out. How about yours?
But wait! There’s more!
Section 3.13 makes the point that that animal testing is nearly meaningless so the “nutrients and related substance” [that could easily mean a toxic compound, or a whole uncharacterized stew of them] are best tested in human beings to determine “to what extent the nutrient or related substance is bio-available”. So let’s use humans to see if they develop deficiency diseases because the “nutrient” turns out to be non bio-available or develop toxic reactions (perhaps, say, cancer, death, etc.), shall we, because the modified substance may be bio-available, but it may be a bio-available toxin. This is contrary to the Declaration of Helsinki on Medical Experimentation. (http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm)
Interestingly, Section 3. 14 notes “When evaluating exposure, it is appropriate to consider information on whether the consumption of the modified food could lead to adverse nutritional effects…,” Right. I think that’s appropriate, too. The FDA, of course, does not. But another interesting question is, from where is that exposure data supposed to come?
Thailand picked up on this serious problem: human experimentation to evaluate dangerous hazards of the GM foods. He said that he was sure that the necessity to test these GM foods on humans was an error and that they should be tested on animals. It was at that point that the German Secretariat interrupted and stated that the only option CCNFSDU had was to approve the report. And some tell us we are “alarmist” when we seen a totalitarian agenda behind Codex! Like a child, the nature of the parents impacts Codex. Click here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&q=Nutricide&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) for more detail on those totalitarian roots.
Yesterday, I took the organization with Observer Status at Codex which identifies itself as pro-health freedom to severe task because instead of protesting the dangerous (and illegal in the US) Codex policies of nutrient risk assessment, they were, as I put it, “rearranging the cushions on the Titanic’s deck chairs”. Someone characterized this assessment as “a mindless attack”. It was, in fact, quite seriously mindful of the dangerous tactics taken by Codex and the failure of this group to speak out against them. When a health freedom organization fails to speak out for health freedom (despite a later press release to the contrary), it should expect to be taken to task for that failure. That way, it can improve its representation and participation. Hopefully, we all learn from criticism. We appreciate constructive criticism and it was in that spirit that we told you what we observed (and what did not happen !) at the meeting.
But today, one of the members of that organization did, in fact, ask a good question. He did not make the rest of the point (that this is an atrocity and must not be perpetrated on consumers) but he did ask the following question of the CCNFSDU plenary session: “Since”, he said, “95% of the consumers of the European Union and millions of others do not want to eat Genetically Modified foods, where will you get the exposure data to tell you whether there is exposure to unintended components?”
Dr. Grossklaus answered, “If you have a PKU person [who cannot ingest a specific amino acid without major damage – REL] and you make a Phenylalanine-free [the specific amino acid they cannot tolerate – REL] maize [corn – REL], then people will see that it is a good thing and they will eventually change their minds”.
People with Dr. Grossklaus’ degree of arrogance often make the most blatant statements which make clear exactly what they mean while other, more cautious, people would forebear. This was one of those moments. In essence, Dr. Grossklaus said, “Let them eat Genetically Modified Cake! They’ll learn to like it!” And it’s risky cake, as even Codex makes clear!
So, in addition to asking a philosophically interesting question, I was appreciative that the organizations representative asked a question that smoked out a clearly stated statement from one of the primary Codex manipulators. When a person or organization does something that I think deserves commendation, I will commend it.
And so it continues…
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
PS – Perhaps even more telling, when I expressed my concern to Dr. Grossklaus over the cast he was wearing on his leg and asked if he was taking certain nutrients (that accelerate the healing process) he admitted he was… but they are forbidden by the European Food Supplements Directive! Ach! such a good nutritional doctor. REL
