No Honesty About Origin of American Food/Hormone Food Risks

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

GMW: No Honesty About Origin Of American Food/Suppressed report on

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

1.Let's Be Honest About Food's Origin

2.Minority report on hormone food risks suppressed

---

1.Let's Be Honest About Food's Origin

Counter Punch, July 5 2006

By PAUL D. JOHNSON

Salina, Kansas

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson07052006.html

 

The U.S. economy manages to follow the law and label every

electronic gadget and stitch of clothing with where it comes from.

Manufacturers likewise have no trouble putting a required nutrition

list on food packages. But telling where food originates is called

too daunting, and whether it was made by means unknown in nature is

judged irrelevant.

 

The rest of the developed world doesn't see it so, and apparently

isn't as beholden to agribusiness interests as is our government.

Americans deserve better. Congress supported the right of consumers

to know where their food comes from and included a country-of-origin

label requirement back in the 2002 farm bill.

 

But the Agriculture Department opposed this, favoring a voluntary

program, and its economists warned that implementation would cost

$1.9 billion.

 

University of Florida researchers, on the other hand, estimated the

price would be 90% below that claim and cost consumers less than

one-tenth of a cent per pound of food.

 

The government then quietly lowered its estimate by two-thirds. But

the political damage was done.

 

Congress postponed implementation.

 

Meanwhile, the nation's four biggest meat packers, which process

more than 80% of the beef in this country, are quite happy. Without

the label requirement, they can continue to import cheaper foreign

beef to leverage down the price of American cattle. This imported

beef gets an Agriculture Department inspection label when processed

here, and is sold to unsuspecting consumers, who assume it is

expensive American beef.

 

Also keeping consumers in the dark, the Food and Drug Administration

refuses to require labels on food whose production involves genetic

modification.

 

In 1994, the agency approved commercial use of a genetically

engineered bovine growth hormone to increase milk production, and

said that no label was needed.

 

Canada looked at the same test data from the manufacturer, Monsanto,

and banned the hormone. So did the European Union, Australia, New

Zealand, Japan, and other industrialized countries. There is concern

that the hormone raises human cancer risk. And because cows on the

production stimulant are more prone to udder infection, more

antibiotics are used. Overuse of antibiotics undermines our

pharmaceutical arsenal by encouraging antibiotic resistance in

bacteria.

 

The Agriculture Department reported in 2002 that two million of

America's 9.2 million dairy cows received the hormone, and that

larger dairies use it far more than farms with fewer than 100 cows.

Given the industry's mixing of milk from many farms, most U.S. dairy

products have milk from injected cows.

 

The FDA ruled in 1992 that genetically modified food did not differ

from other foods in any meaningful way. But there was considerable

debate within the FDA over the differences between foods with and

without genetic modification. A lawsuit filed by the Alliance for

Bio-Integrity prompted the agency to release documents that

highlighted the concerns some agency scientists had about biotech

foods.

 

But under this country's present voluntary system, they remain

unlabeled. Polls show that demand for this kind of food is low, and a

large majority wants labeling. That could spell market failure, so

biotechnology companies and agribusiness giants are opposed.

 

Without any labeling and separating of genetically modified

ingredients, many overseas buyers have rejected corn, soy, canola,

and cotton from the United States and Canada. In this country, large

natural-food supermarket chains have announced that they will use no

genetically modified foods in store brands.

 

But most processed food in this country contains soy, corn, or both

in some form, and 80 percent of soy and 38% of corn commercially

grown in the United States is genetically altered.

 

In a free and open market, transparency is necessary for consumers

to know what they are getting. Scientists and nations around the

world recognize this. But where and how Americans' food is raised

too often remains hidden. We should enjoy the basic right to know.

 

Paul D. Johnson, an organic-market gardener and a family-farm

legislative advocate for several churches in Kansas, is a member of

the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, in Salina, Kansas.

---

2.For immediate release - 3rd July 2006

 

Further information: Tom MacMillan on 07973 137185.

 

PRESS RELEASE: Minority report on hormone food risks

 

The independent Food Ethics Council [1] has today made publicly

available a minority report [2] by one member of an official expert

committee that looked into the safety of hormones in beef.

 

According to reports this morning by the BBC and the Daily Mail,

Defra is soon expected to publish a long-awaited review by the

Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) of 'Risks associated with the

use of hormonal substances in food-producing animals'.[3] The

minority report highlights additional evidence on potential cancer

risks left out of the VPC's review. The Food Ethics Council has

agreed to make the minority report available through its website

after the VPC broke with accepted good practice by opting not to

publish the dissenting view. The VPC's decision is contrary to the

UK government's Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees,

which states that " any significant diversity of opinion among the

members of the committee should be accurately reflected in the

report " .[4]

 

John Verrall, a member of the VPC and of the sub-group that wrote

the official report, argues in his minority report that the

committee did not consider relevant scientific evidence to support

concern that even very low-level exposure to hormones used in beef

production could cause cancer in humans.[5] Nevertheless, according

to Verrall, the key message to take from the official report is

caution, since it documents considerable scientific uncertainty over

whether it is safe to eat hormone-treated meat. His concern is that

the level of scientific uncertainty and the need for caution that it

implies are both downplayed in the summary of the official report –

the only part most people will read – which states that hormone

residues in food " would not be sufficient to induce any measurable

physiological effect " .

 

All the hormones reviewed in the report are banned from EU farming

on safety grounds but they are used in the USA, Canada and other

countries. The EU has been under pressure from the World Trade

Organisation to lift its ban, and it pays about 120 million US

dollars per year in compensation to countries that export beef

produced using hormones.

 

The report is crucial because it comes at a moment when the EU is

challenging the WTO to lift that fine, on the basis of new

scientific evidence.

 

" The VPC report supports the EU position that these hormones should

not be used in meat production because it underlines the

considerable doubt that exists over their safety, " says Dr Tom

MacMillan, Executive Director of the Food Ethics Council. " But

Verrall's report is important because experience shows that the

detail really matters in WTO disputes – the outcome can hinge on how

a report like this is interpreted, so there is no room for

ambiguity. It would be tragic if some EU countries continued to pay

millions of dollars in wrong-headed fines or, worse still, public

safety was compromised, just because the experts overlooked recent

evidence or chose their words poorly. "

 

The Food Ethics Council calls on the government to reassure

consumers by:

 

- Stating clearly in public that the government understands the key

message of the expert report, which is that the use of hormones in

beef production may pose risks to consumers.

 

- Supporting the EU challenge against the WTO's punitive fines.

 

- Commissioning an independent review of all expert advisory

committees to ensure that they follow best practice on communicating

minority views and scientific uncertainty, in reality and not just

on paper.

 

John Verrall is a member of the Food Ethics Council. However, it is

in a personal capacity that he wrote the minority report and that he

serves on the VPC.

 

For further information and interviews contact Tom MacMillan on

07973 137185.

 

NOTES TO EDITORS:

 

1. The Food Ethics Council is an independent champion for better

food and farming. We challenge government, business and the public

to tackle problems ethically, providing research, analysis and tools

to help. For more information visit www.foodethicscouncil.org.

 

2. The minority report is available at

www.foodethicscouncil.orgverrallreport.pdf. The report was

initially intended by the author to be appended to the official

report and it is published here in the draft form in which it was

submitted to the VPC for consideration.

 

3. The Veterinary Products Committee is a scientific committee that

advises the government on the use of veterinary drugs, including in

farming. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an executive agency

of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),

provides the secretariat for the committee. In 2002, the committee

established a Working Group on the Review of Hormones. The Working

Group's brief was to evaluate the latest statement warning against

the use of hormones in meat production from the European

Commission's Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to

Public Health.

 

A draft version of the official VPC report is available at

www.vpc.gov.uk/comments/report.pdf.

 

4. The Code of Practice is available at

www.ost.gov.uk/policy/advice/copsac/index.htm. The same paragraph

(64), in full, states:

 

" Committees should not seek unanimity at the risk of failing to

recognise different views on a subject. These might be recorded as a

range of views, possibly published as an addendum to the main

report. However, any significant diversity of opinion among the

members of the committee should be accurately reflected in the

report. "

 

In addition, the Code of Practice emphasises the need for committees

to take special care in interpreting and communicating uncertainty.

It quotes the BSE Inquiry Report (Vol 1, para 1275): " An advisory

committee should not water down its formulated assessment of risk

out of anxiety not to cause public alarm. "

 

5. Verrall's minority report highlights relevant papers and

statements by expert bodies that are not considered in the official

report. In addition, since his minority report was drafted, further

analysis of potential risks associated with low-level exposure to

hormones used in meat production has been published by the

University Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet,

Copenhagen, Denmark, which under Professor Niels E. Skakkebæk is a

recognised world authority on the subject.

 

By kind permission of the authors, Human Reproduction Update and

Oxford University Press, the article is reproduced on our website at

www.foodethicscouncil.orgoestrogenarticle.pdf. The article

states:

 

" The question of possible effects of sex steroid exposure of

children is extremely relevant, as we have been unable to find good

evidence of a safe margin for exposure of children to sex hormones

added to food products. Previous calculations seem to be based on

flawed assumptions. " (p.6)

 

" Because no lower threshold for estrogenic action has been

established, caution should be taken to avoid unnecessary exposure

of fetuses and children to exogenous sex steroids and endocrine

disruptors, even at very low levels. " (p.1)

 

The Food Ethics Council, 39 – 41 Surrey Street, Brighton BN1 3PB

United Kingdom t: 01273 766 654 f: 01273 766 653

info www.foodethicscouncil.org