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

[Guest guest]

GMW: No Honesty About Origin Of American Food/Suppressed

report on hormone food risks

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:26:58 +0100

 

 

 

 

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 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

 

ENDS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------