D-Sector for Development Community

   Thursday, May 23, 2013
Agriculture - Duties and Rights - Education - Environment - Food - Global - Governance - Health - Indian Economy - Indian Society - Physical Development - Social Welfare - Water and Sanitation
Print | Back
Obama must regulate the Food Safety Hazards
By Jeffrey Smith



If President Obama's new Food Safety Working Group dedicates all their time and credentials to prevent future food recalls, they will have saved thousands of people--but forsaken millions.

Over the last decade, our radically changing diet has ushered in the explosive growth of food-related ailments, such as allergies, asthma, obesity, diabetes, autism, infertility, gastro-intestinal disorders, and learning disabilities. Of all the changes in our food, the most dangerous transformation was the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops.

When these gene-spliced concoctions, such as GM soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed, came on the scene in 1996, the proportion of Americans suffering from three or more chronic ailments. After just 9 years, that nearly doubled to 13%. GM foods are the prime suspect.

Government policy at odds with science

Until now, the government has sidestepped the controversy by hiding behind FDA policy, which asserts that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are "substantially equivalent" to natural foods and therefore don't require any safety studies. But as Obama acknowledged, "many of the laws and regulations governing food safety in America" are outdated.

In truth, the FDA's GMO policy was not even up-to-date when it was implemented in May 1992. FDA documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that virtually all the agency scientists asked to comment voiced strong warnings that GMOs may cause serious health problems. But the FDA was under orders from the White House to fast track GM foods, and the person in charge of FDA policy was the former attorney of biotech giant Monsanto--and later become their vice president. The scientists and the science were ignored.

Now that animals fed GMOs--in labs and farms around the world--have exhibited symptoms related to the growing list of diseases in the US population, the President's Food Safety team, including Dr. Margaret Hamburg as FDA Commissioner, must update GMO regulation. A scientifically sound regulation would translate into an immediate ban of current GM crops, and the implementation of rigorous safety testing requirements before any GMO was put back into the food supply. And certainly mandatory labeling, as promised by President Obama during his campaign, must accompany any GM food approval.

Presidents and industry insiders avoid GMOs

The Obama family has wisely opted out of exposing themselves to GM foods by requiring organic--and therefore non-GMO--foods served at the White House. They are even planting an organic garden on the south lawn of the White House, to feature 55 types of vegetables.

The Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. Laura Bush was "adamant" about it, but kept it all quiet.

Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won't consume the company's own GM creations. Back in 1999, the management of the cafeteria at Monsanto's UK headquarters in High Wycombe, England wrote:

"In response to concern raised by our customers . . . we have decided to remove, as far as possible, genetically modified soy and maize (corn) from all food products served in our restaurant. . . . We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

And one former Monsanto scientist told me that his colleagues, who were safety testing milk from cows injected with the company's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, decided to stop drinking milk--unless it was organic.

It's now time to let us all opt out of this dangerous and failed GM experiment. If Obama's team is serious about food safety and public health, they must take GMOs off our plates and put them back into the laboratory.

 
Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of d-sector editorial team.
 

Source: Huffington Post

Write to d-sector  |  Editor's Note
 


 
 Other Articles in Human Development
 
 
Coke Nation

The news that Indians consume far less aerated beverages each year than their neighbours in Pakistan and China could be interpreted differently. In comparison to per capita annual consumption of 39 and 21 bottles of aerated drinks in China and Pakistan respectively, average Indian drinks just about 14 bottles in a year. For Coca-Cola this means a serious job at hand for which the company has announced an advertisement budget of $5 billion. For the company, economic growth of a country and its peoples' thirst for aerated beverages is directly coorelated. 

Coca-Cola doesn't consider 'negative' publicity for cola behind poor consumption of the aerated beverage in India. As per its books, brand Coca-Cola has registered consecutive growth for past 27 quarters and has been a leader with a brand volume of 30 per cent. For Coca-Cola the target is to turn it into a 'Coke Nation', on the lines of Mexico where per capita annual consumption is 745 bottles..Whether Indian consumer exercises restraint in gulping the drink whose health consequences are all but known, the flipside to the story is that  the state governments are falling prey to Coca-Cola's investment plans?

Waste Appetite

The clock has turned full circle! After dumping industrial and toxic trash in the developing world all these years, Europe is now shopping for garbage to keep its cities, schools and homes heated. What better place than the developing world to shop for garbage! Reports indicate that northern Europe needs more than 700 million tons of trash to keep its waste-to-energy plants running. Most of its current demand is either domestically met or from garbage shipped from southern Europe.Yet, the demand is far more than what neighboring countries can spare after meeting their domestic needs. 

As more waste incinerators are being built in Sweden, Norway, Austria and Germany to meet the growing demand for heating public places, these countries are left with two options - either encourage households to produce more trash or else import garbage from across the world. For sure, it is easy to import than to produce! A company in England is already shipping some 1,000 tons of garbage to keep its systems running. Since incinerators have cornered environmental controversy in India and for rightful reasons, there exists an opportunity to explore feasibility of exporting as much as 109,589 tonnes of garbage that piles our streets on a daily basis. 

Lead View
To pee or not to pee
By Sudhirendar Sharma
21 Apr 2013

Sustained pollution of major rivers; continuous decline in groundwater reserves; priority allocation to non-consumptive sectors; and, growing disparity in water distribution only indicates that the worst is still to come!..
Book Shelf

Water Drops

Provocations for Development

River Dog

Psychology in the Bathroom
Commentators
Devinder Sharma
Carmen Miranda
Pandurang Hegde
Sudhirendar Sharma
Member Login
- New Member
- Forgot Password

Business Plan,Business Ideas,Advanced Energy,High Technology,Healthy Diets,Healthy Foods,Games Guides,Games Cheats,Export Business,US exports,Study Skills,Study Tips,Health Tips,Health Guides,Jewelry Stores,Jewellery UK Online