FOOD FROM "CLONED" ANIMALS-THE LABEL CONTROVERSY!

Ever since Dolly the Sheep, was created by the biotechnology wizards through cloning process in 1996, there have been fierce debates regarding the safety of meat and milk derived from the off springs of cloned parents. Even to day there is no unanimity on this controversial issue and consumers are left in the lurch by not providing accurate and reliable information on the subject. Recent reports that American consumers have been eating food products manufactured from cloned animals for the last two years without them knowing about it, do raise ethical and moral questions regarding the role of the safety authorities in that country. A democracy always flourish when there is transparency in what ever the government is doing and here is a perfect example of a country considered a stalwart in democratic form of governance cheating its citizens by not being honest, sincere and transparent when it comes to GM foods or Cloned animal derived products. European countries fare much better in this respect as they are considering imposing compulsory labeling of such products as and when they are permitted to be marketed after conclusively proving their safety. Here is a take on this latest development in cloned animal products.

"Food safety representatives from the European Parliament's Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI)  told the European Commission in February they want a bill regulating animal cloning within a year. ENVI has insisted that meat or milk products from the offspring of clones be labeled and traceable. Unfortunately, meat or milk from cloned animals in the US will not be labeled. Some say "is not labeled" because we are already eating it. In 2008, the FDA ruled that products from clones and their offspring will not be labeled because they are "no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals"--the same thing that was said about rBGH-produced milk.  Nevertheless, the FDA asked producers to "voluntarily keep milk and meat from clones out of the food and feed supplies until we finish assessing their safety." Key words: asked and voluntarily. But a 2010 demonstration in England over possible unlabeled and illegal food from clones in that country revealed that clones may already be on the American dinner plate-- with US food consumers being the last to know. The BBC, while reporting on the British cloned herd, said that cloned products have been in the US food supply for two years. Who knew? Jim McLaren, president of Scotland's National Farmers Union, concurred and told the press, "If you go to the US or Canada you will almost certainly be consuming meat and dairy products from cloned animals at every turn." Margaret Wittenberg, global vice-president of Whole Foods Market,  agreed. United States customers are "oblivious" to cloned products in the food supply, she verified to the BBC. "You don't hear about it in the media. And when you do tell people about it they look at you and say 'you're kidding! They're not doing that are they? Why would they?'" Whole Foods says it bans the sale of cloned products. When Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was asked point-blank, during a 2010 trade mission in Canada, if "cloned cows or their offspring have made it into the North American food supply,' he put no fears to rest. "I can't say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way. I don't know. What I do know is that we know all the research, all of the review of this is suggested that this is safe." So much for informed public officials. An FDA report written in collaboration with Cyagra, a Pennsylvania-based clone company, seeks to put public fears at rest over the brave new food. Not a big surprise since Cyagra, boasts about selling clone products to US butchers (who presumably sell to customers) and about its employees regularly dining on cloned products, say British new sources. Since the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was created, cattle, horses, goats, pigs, and mice have been cloned, as well as dogs and cats, a mouflon sheep, a mule, and a racing camel. In fact, cloning doesn't even make headlines anymore. But lengthy reports from both FDA and  European Food Safety Authority raise questions about the safety of milk and meat from cloned animals and their offspring, their welfare and protection from suffering and the soundness of the cloning process. Why not let food consumers vote whether they want to support such food with their forks, say US and European consumers, by simply labeling them? END"

Why is this happening repeatedly in this particular country? How can the US which has substantial conservative population which abhors abortion as a strategy for family planning condone the sufferings and distortions taking place among cloned animals? When Dolly was created it took 277 aborted attempts and only one could survive! Look at the policy paralysis that has overtaken the American government when it comes to taking any decision against the powerful industry lobbies. First it was GM foods which were permitted under severe pressure from the powerful food and biotech industries. In spite of massive protests against the present policy of not making label declaration of GM foods compulsory, there does not appear to be any hurry on the part of the government to change the policy soon. Now comes the news that the safety authorities are ignoring the wide prevalence of food products in the market made from cloned animals during the last two years. Does this not amount to total insensitivity to the feelings, apprehensions and aspirations of people at large? If irradiated foods have to carry labels declaring the process used, why is that same rule cannot be applied to GM foods and Cloned animal foods? Is there any rationale or logic? Is the government in the US for the people or for the all powerful industry lobbyists? One can only sympathize with the agony and dilemma faced by the US consumers due to thoughtless policies and actions of their government!

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

           

LABELING OF GM FOODS-THE LAST BASTION OF RESISTANCE MAY CRUMBLE SOON

Are genetically modified foods and ingredients absolutely safe for human consumption? Probably with the present conflicting claims and interests of pressure groups and lack of critical volume of data in human experiments, it is doubtful whether even "God" himself can answer this vexing question with any reasonable degree of certainty! Keeping aside the issue of safety, those who permit GM foods in their country can at least be transparent with their citizens by declaring on the label about the use of such unnatural ingredients in formulated foods. This is what American citizens are asking of their government for the last several years. So far the American government has not budged from its stand that GM foods are safe and consumers must "believe" them. But winds of change are blowing across this country and the people are "forcefully" demanding for such regulatory labeling to which Government has to bow eventually. Here is the latest on this issue.

"Thousands of products in the typical American grocery store, from cereals to corn chips, contain genetically modified ingredients. But the average shopper wouldn't know it from their labels. Many companies in the food and biotechnology industry, including Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., want to keep it that way. But they'll have to fend off a growing push for labels on genetically modified products that's gaining traction in Washington and state capitals. At least 18 states are now considering laws that would make the labels mandatory, including Illinois and California, the country's biggest market. Earlier this year, pro-labeling advocates marched from New York to Washington. Late last fall, about 500 groups, including some of the country's biggest consumer organizations, banded together as the Just Label It campaign. Also last fall, the Washington-based Center for Food Safety filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, calling for the agency to require labels. As of this week, the petition had 850,000 signatures of support, the most ever for a federal food petition. "Fifty countries have mandatory labeling. We're one of the only developed countries that doesn't. GMOs are labeled in China, Russia. Why would consumers in those countries have this information and we not have it here?" said Megan Westgate, executive director of the the Non-GMO Project, a group that verifies and labels products as free of genetically altered ingredients. "It feels like we're at this tipping point where a lot more Americans are concerned about this."

Is it not funny that the very same government insists on labeling a product treated with gamma radiation though more than 65 countries have cleared food irradiation process as safe beyond any shadow of doubt? Double standards? Of course! If there were a lobby for irradiation process as powerful as that advocating GM technology for producing foods, Government would not have made labeling mandatory for irradiated foods. While debating on this issue, the views of the protagonists who believe that GM technology only can achieve quantum jump in food production in coming years should not be unilaterally shunned and with the present pace of scientific development there may be a possibility that the technology may gain universal acceptance in future. Till such time citizens must be given the choice to buy or not to buy GM foods through clear labeling.

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

  

WHY PALM OIL IS "UNJUSTIFIABLY" TARGETED? IT IS TIME FOR COUNTER ATTACK

Palm oil, the cheapest edible oil in the international market, has been giving other oils a run for their money and hence it is the focus of attack by its competitors, rightly or wrongly. No matter how hard countries like US, Canada and other industrialized countries try to compete with Palm oil with their own oils like Soy, Canola etc, it has been a losing battle as evidenced by the preference of food industries world over for palm oil because of its thermal stability and functional advantages besides the low price. Indonesia and Malaysia together account for more than 40 million tons of global production and both being forest rich countries, the campaign against them revolves around the prevalent production practices which have been termed "unsustainable" but with least conviction. The western inspired Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil is to day in the forefront denigrating this oil, obviously to gain market advantage for their own oils. The latest attempts in Australia to even force Palm oil using food manufacturers to declare on the label whether the oil used is sustainable or not is a clear violation of WTO regulations which does not allow TBT for discriminating against any product in the world trade.

"Aimed at consumers, politicians and the food industry, the ongoing campaign in Australia to single out palm oil as a food ingredient, revolves around the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Palm Oil) Bill 2010.If the Bill is passed, there will be new labelling standards for producers, manufacturers and distributors of foods containing palm oil. The proposed change in law is based on the argument that "palm oil production results in extensive deforestation". Said the explanatory memorandum to the Bill: "As the major producers are Malaysia and Indonesia, this has led to the removal of wildlife habitat and has placed many species, including the endangered orang utan, at risk." The purpose of the legislation, according to the memorandum, is "to ensure that consumers are provided with clear, accurate information about the inclusion of palm oil in foods, and to encourage the use of certified sustainable palm oil in order to promote the protection of wildlife habitat".

Watching the above "circus', one is reminded of similar campaign against Brazil which was accused of environmental crime for expanding its sugar cane cultivation as a part of a long term program to cut down consumption of fossil fuel vis ethanol production. Obviously such programs are likely to hurt the Corn industry which also produces ethanol and Fructose syrup, competing with Brazilian sugar cane industry. When Asian countries pioneered the Palm oil industry with the hard sweat of their people, there were organized attempts by the West to denigrate the oil as unhealthy with potential for causing Heart disease and other related dangers and it was a hard fought battle by the palm growing countries deploying western nutritionists to demolish the insinuations. Now that the oil has become the most sought after edible oil or biofuel, new road blocks are sought to be created by calling Palm oil production environmentally unsustainable! As sellers have no choice, the Palm oil producers have to listen to the grievances of the buyers, however "unsustainable" their stand many be! The critics of Palm oil do not seem to have any conscience while arguing out their case because of the impact of unjustified action on the economy of those countries which rely heavily on export of Palm oil. More than 2 million people find employment in Palm oil production, besides thousands of small growers with limited resources to dance to the tune of the Western countries, which seem to be shifting the "goal post" from time to time, the obvious purpose being finding one or the other fault with Palm oil. It is time that producers of Palm oil start a charm offensive to counteract the bad publicity with scientific evidence that Palm oil plantations are not that bad as being made out to be by the vested interests.

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