| February 13, 2007 "You Can't Trust Consumers to Make the Right Choice About GM Foods. The Truth Would Be Confusing and Misleading!" Says FDA Apparently FDA's Barbara Schneeman, PhD is really smart. Everyone else at the FDA and the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and State is really smart, too. Apparently, in their minds, you and I are not very smart at all. According to Dr. Schneeman's oft-repeated statement at the recently concluded Working Group on GM foods last week (Oslo, Feb. 6-7, 2007), the US Delegate at the recently concluded Codex Working Group on Genetically Modified (GM) foods we, the consumers, cannot be trusted to make the right choice if the US labeled GM foods! Based on their research, US consumers consistently state that if they knew which foods were GM and which were not, they would opt for the GM ones. In the words of Dr. Schneeman, GM information on labels would be "false and misleading" and would "confuse the consumer" into "making the wrong choice". What's The Wrong Choice? NOT Buying GM Food, Says FDA. According to Dr. Schneeman, research shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to eat real food, not GM "FrankenFood". They are willing to spend more money for real food and go out of their way to avoid untested, unproven and unappealing unnaturally modified lab foods. To prevent us from making that "wrong choice" and continuing to eat the food that have sustained us for virtually every bit of human history, the paternalistic, "food fascist" US government has a great strategy: don't tell Americans what they are eating and don't give them the opportunity to make that terrible choice to eat safe food! You have to admire the breathtaking audacity and out-of-the-Bill-of-Rights-and-Constitutional Authority-Box reasoning of these unelected bureaucrats! Constitutional Quiz True or False: The US Supreme Court says the US Government has the right to withhold significant information from consumers in order to compel them to make the choice the US Government wants them to make. ____ True ____ False If you picked "True" , please read the First Amendment again unless you are a policy maker for, say, the FDA, in which case you apparently have no need whatsoever for the niceties of free speech and citizen rights. Supreme Court: 'Government May Not Prevent Spread of Truthful Information to Consumers' In the famous Thompson v Western States Medical Centers case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a critically important opinion about whether the US Government could suppress truth to prevent consumers from acting as they chose in matters of health, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort….We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information." Thompson v Western States Medical Centers referred to the right of the public to choose compounded drugs over prescription drugs but the principle is exactly the same here. Significantly, Justice O'Connor added, discussing the rights of compounding [custom] pharmacists to inform consumers about this option, "Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each compounded drug to be labeled with a warning that the drug had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."* That's an interesting idea which Justice O'Connor laid out with great relevance to GM foods: if drugs compounded by pharmacists could be labeled "that [they] had not undergone FDA testing and their risks were unknown", why shouldn't GM food bear the same warning ? Somehow, the issue of safety (in this case, lack of safety) of GM foods has gotten pushed way, way under the green CP rug: that's "Corporate Profits". Singing an Orwellian Lullaby: Second Verse Worse Than the First Dr. Schneeman did not change her tune on the second day of the meeting, either. In fact, she sang another verse of "America the UnBeautiful", to the mingled apparent amusement, shock and distress of the pro-consumer countries present. Countries Say: "We Trust Consumers to Use Information Correctly" Most of the nations represented at the meeting made it clear that they spend a huge amount of effort accurately and truthfully informing their consumers about GM foods. In fact, the EU website devoted to the subject was reported at the meeting to be among the largest websites in the world. They hide nothing from the consumer in this debate and have made consumer information and truth in labeling a corner stone of their regulatory public policy. Fantasy "First Amendment Issues" Draw Gasps, Titters from Delegates India, the EU, Japan, Norway and others responded with an audible gasp (followed by titters) as Dr. Schneeman defended the FDA's adamantly paternalistic, anti-consumer refusal to label GM foods "because it is a First Amendment issue". She said that "the FDA could not compel a company to put something on its label because that would be a violation of the First Amendment". Excuse me? The FDA tasked with enforcing accurate and truthful labeling for drugs, devices, foods and supplements, suddenly demurs and does not feel that, despite its general practice, it can apply truthful labeling standards to Big Biotech although it rides supplements particularly hard in this regard? What's that I smell? Have I caught a whiff of corporate corruption, influence peddling and dangerous disregard for public safety and the future of the environment here? Codex Delegates Familiar With First Amendment. Is FDA? Based solely on their spontaneous reactions, it would appear that virtually all of the delegates and advisers present on the second day of the Oslo meeting had at least a passing familiarity with the Bill of Rights, or at least its First Amendment. Apparently, FDA policy pundits do not have the delegate's advantage. That section of the Bill of Rights, which Justice O'Connor referenced in her opinion, forms one of the pulsing hearts of the American way of approaching life and governance, or used to. To make matters worse, despite most people's assumption that these government bureaucracies are somehow concerned with consumer safety and rights, the fact is that safety considerations explicitly play no role in the dec isions around GM foods. Since they look like the conventional foods which are generally regarded as safe, they are conveniently, and perhaps tragically, assumed to be safe as well. Only if their levels of food components are altered significantly will the FDA permit GM foods to be labeled, and then only as "high fructose apples" or "low carbohydrate corn" or whatever. The fact that they are GM will not be indicated. To do so would be, as you remember, "false and misleading". Astonishingly, although there are many very worrisome and significant safety questions about what happens when you introducing foreign DNA into the nucleus of foods using high energy and/or viruses, adding antibiotic resistant genes to food (to serve as markers) and forcing cells to produce foreign proteins that have never before been encountered on this planet, GM foods are not regulated by the US government for safety! Only a patent is necessary for a company to market a GM food. If there is a safety problem, says the FDA, the courts will sort it out at a later time. While I am a physician, not a lawyer, it would seem to me that if food is not labeled and whether you ever ate it or not cannot be traced or identified, it makes it just a wee bit difficult to sort anything out in a court of law, doesn't it? But, assuming a company wants the pallid blessing of the US Government for its novel food, the FDA will award a "Certificate of Equivalency" for a food that has the same sensory qualities as the unmodified [real] version. Corporate Foxes Guard Food Safety Hen House Just what does the FDA need before it lets a biotech company mix its unnatural creation into your diet? Here is what the FDA itself has to say on its website**: "The FDA requests that firms submit a summary of their assessment [of the new GM food] to the agency. The FDA does not request the original data and, therefore, does not conduct a scientific review of the firm's decision."** And if the firm suppresses negative information about its product as Biotech firms are alleged to have done? Again, from the FDA's own site: "The plants and the foods and feeds derived from them have been tested extensively in the U.S. for environmental safety and for consumption as human food and feed for animals." Note: IN the United States, not BY the United States. The difference could literally spell your life or death IF GM foods are as unsafe as independent scientific testing shows them to be. Simply put, the safety of GM foods is "established" by manufacturers who are allowed the regulatory privilege of merely asserting the FDA that their products are fit for human consumption whether they are or not. This passive assertion is good enough for an organization which routinely withdraws 40% of its approved drugs in 5 years because they are too dangerous to remain on the market. And that's WITH some sort of safety scrutiny. "Way Forward? One Way: Our Way" Says US The Oslo Working Group was convened to find a "way forward", as they love to say in Codex. At the Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL, Ottawa, 2006) the US proposed that that, since it was unhappy with the lack of outcome after 8 years of discussion about labeling of GMs, and since there had been no agreement or consensus on labeling for many years (at least since 1991) in Codex, CCFL should just drop the matter altogether. While that superficially sounded like a defeat for the US and pro GM forces it was no such thing. In fact, it was a ploy of consummate skill by the Biotech interests. "EU Adamant: No Unlabeled GM, Tell Consumers Everything" The EU was unyielding at the CCFL meeting: no GMs without labeling and precious few GMs for human consumption, (despite high levels of GM feed for animals). "Ballet of Dissent" May Change Course of GMs in Codex Then the "Ballet of Dissent" hove into view. A large group of countries, acting together, bogged down the otherwise easy sailing of the US corporate agenda. Instead, there was a vigorous outcry NOT to stop talking but to find a "way forward" in coming toward a common ground on GM food. After all, if there is no Codex standard or guideline, how could a country say "No" to GM food within the "science based: world of Codex? Further, if the GM standard were dropped by CCFL because of lack of progress, another international body could set the rules or, worst case, the issue could go back to the Codex Alimentarius Commission which pretty much always gives the US what it wants. At least on the GM issue, there was a high degree of effective opposition to the US/Biotech corporate desire to force GM on the rest of the world whether they wanted it or not. Over strenuous objection by the US Biotech Buddies, CCFL decided to hold a Working Group that Norway would host and chair with Ghana and Argentina volunteering to co-chair the meeting. Thus, the sides were drawn before the delegates arrived through 16 contentious years of debate and, despite some impressive screaming (mostly by the "US Biotech Buddies": Mexico, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand) and, of course the opposition of the US to any labeling for any reason of any GM product of any sort.
After the first day's work had produced a very useful chart of the regulatory strategy of each country, the question naturally came up on the second and last day about what to do with it. All delegates (except the US Biotech Buddies) wanted to send the chart, product of many hours of difficult work, to CCFL so all of the member states could get a good feel for what the national options are. Moments after this idea hit the floor, the war was on: the US Biotech Buddies put forth maximum effort to make sure that the rest of the world did NOT have access to this excellent chart listing regulatory structure and why each had been chosen by that country.
But there was another war going on that day as well: Consumer-friendly countries did not see how they could budge an inch over consumer protection and the public's right to know that their foods were contaminated with GM products and ingredients while the US Biotech Buddies stoutly maintained that there WAS no meaningful right to know, and there were NO safety issues whatsoever in GM foods. NONE! "Heated" does not even begin to describe the tone of the discussion. Argentina and Mexico were literally screaming into their microphones. On the other side, the EU was calm but firm, Norway was passionate but courteous, India was adamant but pleasant, Japan was firm and very, very polite but the consensus was consumers must know if they want to know. The US was mostly calm but, as the afternoon wore on and the tide was definitely going against Biotech in control, Dr. Schneeman became stridently irate. Most of the delegates just watched. During the lunch break there was a very large knot of delegates around the EU and US while the EU tried to come to an accommodation with the US which refused to budge one iota. The clot of delegates grouped around the principle combatants like a bunch of 6th graders whooping two kids on who are having a fist fight.
Biotech Brigage to the Rescue, Sort Of At one point, the Commercial Cavalry rode up to the microphone to the US's rescue. During the session, the Dr. Schneeman handed the microphone to an industry representative to allow her to speak for the US. The representative of the International Council of Grocery Manufacturer's Associations said that consumer information and consumer choice were a waste of scarce resources and should not be continued. Consumer safety, likewise was not an issue and neither the US nor Codex should waste any more time on effort on either of them. Opposition to this idea was vigorous, I am pleased to tell you. From the point of health and health freedom, once again, the US was on the wrong side of this issue, as it was on every other issue raised. Then the argument turned astonishing: GM food should be automatically approved since there is no safety issue, according to Argentina) so anything else would be ridiculous. But wait, said the Biotech Buddies members: Codex SHOULD NOT consider the safety of food. AND, if the rights of consumers are being considered, that is not a fit subject for Codex to discuss, either . Back to the chart: Argentina, Mexico, Australia/NZ and the US (the Biotech Buddies) fought like wounded tigers to try to stop that chart from becoming generally available. Eventually, after hugely contentious wrangling over what seemed pretty trivial concerns (so you know something bigger was riding on it), a text interpretation with minority opinion that the graph should never have seen daylight was agreed upon. The contents of the graph were to be listed in table form as an appendix but the information would be made available to all members of CCFL. We are talking hours of deliberation here. Eight potential "ways forward" were finally listed as part of the output of the Working Group. One of them to "discontinue talking". So, at the end of the two days, what was accomplished by the Working Group? - Consolidation of their ability and will to choose options other than those presented by the US developed. From our point of view, we watched as the might and weight of the US position was thrust aside by nations activated to protect the rights and health of their people. That was, frankly, inspiring.
- A systematic view developed of how countries carry out their GM labeling and how very important consumer information and choice are to many countries. We see this as a possible paradigm shift if this trend is expanded upon properly.
- The US Biotech Buddies and, in particular, the US made themselves ridiculous in their blind commercialism. Corridor and coffee-break buzz was very negative about their disdain for health, choice and consumers.
The Natural Solutions Foundation solidified old friendships and made new ones with delegates who were unfamiliar with the history of Codex and its real agendas. We found sympathetic ears in surprising places and will be pursuing these contacts in the days to come. Globalizing Health Freedom For example, on the way back to the Oslo airport we had an hour-long conversation about regulation of GM foods, the dangers and the importance of consumer choice with the delegate from one of the major forces on our side in the meeting. He asked probing questions about US regulation and we shared a considerable bit of information on the topic that expanded the dialogue significantly. We also brought forward the idea that regulation of nutrients and supplements should follow the same consumer demand as GM foods. This was a new idea. We promised an exchange of information and will be visiting with their decision-makers to expand the dialogue even further. Health is health everywhere around the world, and health freedom needs to be globalized. Why does this matter to the US? Fortress America needs to trade goods. The more countries that put the skids on our dangerous and contaminated foods and worthless non-nutritive ones (the deadly Standard American Diet or "SAD"), the more pressure results for America to rethink the hammer lock it has given the Multinational Corporations on its health policies. Those policies are killing America and, more important to some, killing America's trade. And, of course, this international pressure means more support in the marketplace for real food inside the US and outside of it. And, as always, we would not be able to fight this fight without your strong and continued support. This is really a team effort. When you share our information with others, you are widening the base of support for health and health freedom. When you donate time, creativity and/or money to the Natural Solutions Foundation, you are making it possible for us to fight for your health and health freedom. The FDA may not trust you but the Natural Solutions Foundation does. Yours in health and freedom, Rima E. Laibow, MD Medical Director *The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If "no" to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is "substantial", (2) the regulation must "directly advance" the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be "more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest" (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566). ** http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biojap96.html Donate : http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189 | 
