Guest guest Posted April 2, 2002 Report Share Posted April 2, 2002 Monday, April 01, 2002 11:04 PM Biotech Food Labeling Delayed > MEDLINEplus: Biotech Food Labeling Delayed- > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_6752.html - > > Biotech Food Labeling Delayed > Associated Press > By PHILIP BRASHER AP Farm Writer > > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Companies that want to label food as free of genetically > engineered ingredients will have to wait while the government decides how to > make sure it's true. > The food would have to be tested by the companies and checked periodically > by federal inspectors to make sure it doesn't contain biotech products, said > Lester Crawford, deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. > ``If it's on the label, it has to be true, and it's up to us to be sure that > it is,'' Crawford told the House agricultural appropriations subcommittee on > Thursday. > FDA proposed labeling rules for non-biotech foods in January 2001, during > the final days of the Clinton administration. But Crawford, an appointee of > the Bush administration, said it could be months or even years before the > rules are made final. > Genetically engineered soy and corn are used in a wide variety of foods and > drinks. FDA says the ingredients are just as safe as those produced by > conventional methods. > Critics of biotechnology pushed the Clinton administration to require foods > with gene-altered ingredients to be labeled as such, but FDA refused. > Instead, it proposed the labeling rules for foods that are biotech-free. > The agency would likely allow genetically modified ingredients to make up no > more than about 1 percent of officially biotech-free foods. FDA plans to > check a portion to make sure foods meet the standard, but hasn't decided how > much testing is needed for the results to be statistically valid, Crawford > said. > FDA has suggested several possible labels, including ``We do not use > ingredients that were produced using biotechnology'' and ``This oil is made > from soybeans that were not genetically engineered.'' > A food industry spokesman said few consumers appear interested in buying > non-biotech products. ``I don't really think you're going to see many > companies going out and marketing them if we had the standard tomorrow,'' > said Gene Grabowski of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. > Consumers who want to avoid bioengineered products already can buy organic > products. Beginning this fall, foods that meet the government's standards > for organic products, which bar the use of genetically engineered crops, > will bear a special Agriculture Department seal. > Crawford also told the lawmakers Thursday that FDA has all but ruled out > allowing the term ``cold pasteurization'' on foods that have been irradiated > to kill harmful bacteria. > The food industry has been slow to use irradiation because of consumer > resistance to the term. Lawmakers have been pushing FDA to allow such > products to be called pasteurized. > But the agency tested the term ``cold pasteurization'' with consumer focus > groups and found they viewed it ``as kind of a ruse to conceal the fact'' > the food has been irradiated, Crawford said. ``The public needs to know that > food has been irradiated and that irradiation is safe.'' > He also said the special symbol that must appear on the labels of irradiated > foods is ``threatening to the public.'' > > > Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not > be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. > Health Topics | Drug Information | Dictionaries | Directories | Other > Resources | Home > U.S. National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894 > Copyright, Privacy, Accessibility, We welcome your comments. > Page last updated: 22 March 2002 > > > > To learn more about the group, please visit > > > To to this group, simply send a blank e-mail message to: > - > To change status to digest: -digest > To change status to normal: -normal > You are receiving this email because you elected to . > To Post: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2002 Report Share Posted April 2, 2002 Crawford is double-talking. He doesn't have any idea whether irradiation is safe. He would have to tell us precisely what he means by " safe, " and he almost certainly doesn't know. It all sounds like a poorly veiled effort to kill the whole issue of disclosure of facts we have a right to know, but which convey an unflattering image for the foods sold to us by big food marketers. Crawford believes it might be " ...even years... " before we know what the rules are! What unbelievable arrogance and cynical manipulation and betrayal of the public trust. Crawford keeps saying that irradiated foods are safe, yet he's unwilling to clear the road for universal labeling of all kinds. Clearly, if irradiation, or any other artificial processing of foods, is to shown to be safe, it will have to attested to, by various scientists, researchers, etc. Crawford fears having to deal with the worrisome (for him and the rest of the Bushgang) problem, that if he widely publicizes the viewpoint of " authorities " supportive of irradiation, he'll have to publicize viewpoints hostile to irradiation, as well. If there are reputable sources opposing radiation of foods, it makes the safety of the process doubtful. The government would have to disallow such foods. We don't like ambiguity when it comes to the rules pertaining to how foods are handled, processed and sold, but it's unavoidable. There are people that say milk is good for you. There are people that believe milk is bad for you. Some people favor pastuerization, some people oppose it. Some people favor eating raw food, some want it cooked. Some people think meat is good for you, others think it's an abomination.......and on and on. If irradiation is " safe, " it should be a selling point; otherwise, why irradiate foods? If its a selling point, why not encourage companies that sell irradiated foods, to cheerfully label such foods: " IRRADIATED FOR YOUR PROTECTION. " Then there would be other companies that labeled their foods in a contrary manner: THIS FOOD PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN IRRADIATED, FOR YOUR PROTECTION. " Bush and company, clearly, don't understand this process; it's called Democracy. - " Elaine " <mem121 <Undisclosed-Recipient:@usermail.com;> Monday, April 01, 2002 11:18 PM Biotech Food Labeling Delayed > Monday, April 01, 2002 11:04 PM > Biotech Food Labeling Delayed > > > > MEDLINEplus: Biotech Food Labeling Delayed- > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_6752.html - > > > > Biotech Food Labeling Delayed > > Associated Press > > By PHILIP BRASHER AP Farm Writer > > > > > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Companies that want to label food as free of genetically > > engineered ingredients will have to wait while the government decides how > to > > make sure it's true. > > The food would have to be tested by the companies and checked periodically > > by federal inspectors to make sure it doesn't contain biotech products, > said > > Lester Crawford, deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. > > ``If it's on the label, it has to be true, and it's up to us to be sure > that > > it is,'' Crawford told the House agricultural appropriations subcommittee > on > > Thursday. > > FDA proposed labeling rules for non-biotech foods in January 2001, during > > the final days of the Clinton administration. But Crawford, an appointee > of > > the Bush administration, said it could be months or even years before the > > rules are made final. > > Genetically engineered soy and corn are used in a wide variety of foods > and > > drinks. FDA says the ingredients are just as safe as those produced by > > conventional methods. > > Critics of biotechnology pushed the Clinton administration to require > foods > > with gene-altered ingredients to be labeled as such, but FDA refused. > > Instead, it proposed the labeling rules for foods that are biotech-free. > > The agency would likely allow genetically modified ingredients to make up > no > > more than about 1 percent of officially biotech-free foods. FDA plans to > > check a portion to make sure foods meet the standard, but hasn't decided > how > > much testing is needed for the results to be statistically valid, Crawford > > said. > > FDA has suggested several possible labels, including ``We do not use > > ingredients that were produced using biotechnology'' and ``This oil is > made > > from soybeans that were not genetically engineered.'' > > A food industry spokesman said few consumers appear interested in buying > > non-biotech products. ``I don't really think you're going to see many > > companies going out and marketing them if we had the standard tomorrow,'' > > said Gene Grabowski of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. > > Consumers who want to avoid bioengineered products already can buy organic > > products. Beginning this fall, foods that meet the government's standards > > for organic products, which bar the use of genetically engineered crops, > > will bear a special Agriculture Department seal. > > Crawford also told the lawmakers Thursday that FDA has all but ruled out > > allowing the term ``cold pasteurization'' on foods that have been > irradiated > > to kill harmful bacteria. > > The food industry has been slow to use irradiation because of consumer > > resistance to the term. Lawmakers have been pushing FDA to allow such > > products to be called pasteurized. > > But the agency tested the term ``cold pasteurization'' with consumer focus > > groups and found they viewed it ``as kind of a ruse to conceal the fact'' > > the food has been irradiated, Crawford said. ``The public needs to know > that > > food has been irradiated and that irradiation is safe.'' > > He also said the special symbol that must appear on the labels of > irradiated > > foods is ``threatening to the public.'' > > > > > > Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may > not > > be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. > > Health Topics | Drug Information | Dictionaries | Directories | Other > > Resources | Home > > U.S. National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894 > > Copyright, Privacy, Accessibility, We welcome your comments. > > Page last updated: 22 March 2002 > > > > > > > > To learn more about the group, please visit > > > > > > To to this group, simply send a blank e-mail message to: > > - > > To change status to digest: -digest > > To change status to normal: -normal > > You are receiving this email because you elected to . > > To Post: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.