Re: Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?

From: DonQuijote1954 (nolionnoproblem_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/06/04 

Date: 6 Sep 2004 07:39:40 -0700

"Lictor" <ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE@online.fr> wrote in message news:<413c4088$0$31567$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>...
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.0409051951.4fe74c02@posting.google.com...
> > They sell crackers "100% natural" made with hydrogenated oil, even
> > though such ingredient is totally artificial. Go and figure. Do the
> > poor know that?
>
> Exactly. It's like the traditionnal <whatever> you see in supermarkets.
> Like, the "real traditionnal fruit cake, lovingly baked according to old
> time recipes" I saw last time... Mmm... Check ingredients... Hydrogenated
> vegetal oils... High fructose corn syrup... Soy flour... I wonder whose old
> time recipe their picked... That kind of thing should just be banned as
> *fraud*. Product name, description, labels and claims should be true to the
> actual content of the package. Otherwise, it is a barely hidden attempt at
> misleading the consummers - also known as fraud.

At least they could have said "Old Fashioned FRANKENSTEIN Food" and
you would have a clue. But otherwise, yes, it's only GOOD OLD
FASHIONED FRAUD... ;)

By the way, IMHO, all these ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES, COLORANTS,
PESTICIDES ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN GMO'S.

GMO's however should be labeled...

GMO FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
Editors note: In January, the College of Food, Agri-cultural, and
Environmental Sciences formed a committee to address concerns raised
by GMOs (genetically modified organisms). One of the committee's first
goals was to put together a Q&A—this is a portion of that effort. As
with any public policy issue, the university itself has not and will
not adopt a formal position. However, faculty members are in a
position to share scientific information to help consumers and farmers
make up their own minds on the issue.

Committee members include Steve Baertsche, director, agriculture and
natural resources; Allan Lines, Ian Sheldon, Tom Sporleder and Luther
Tweeten, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics; John
Allred, Food Science and Technology; Steve St. Martin, Mark Loux,
Patty Sweeney and Peter Thomison, Horticulture and Crop Science; John
Finer, Horticulture and Crop Science and Plant Biotechnology; Terry
Graham, Plant Pathology; Joe Kovach, Integrated Pest Management;
Martha Filipic and Suzanne Steel, Communications and Technology; James
Kinder, Animal Sciences; Mac McCaslin, Human and Community Resource
Development; Allison Snow, Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology;
and Tammy Bray, Human Nutrition and Food Management.

Q. It doesn't seem like all scientists agree that GMOs are safe. Why
don't we just wait until everyone agrees that there's no risk to human
health?

A. Actually, scientists have come to a consensus that there's nothing
inherently risky about splicing genes from one organism into another.
For example, GMOs have been used for years to produce an enzyme
required for processing cheese, and no one has called that dangerous.
More recently, a genetically engineered rice that could eliminate
vitamin A deficiencies in some populations has been met with
widespread acclaim.

It's true that there is some disagreement about some classes of GMOs
and their specific uses: Will certain GMOs cause an allergic reaction
in some people? Will a GMO crop designed to kill pests have a
detrimental effect on beneficial insects? These issues have been
studied, and, in fact, at least one GMO (Pioneer Hi-Bred soybeans with
a Brazil-nut protein added) has been abandoned because of an
allergic-reaction threat. But not all scientists everywhere agree that
all GMOs have been studied enough.

Still, most new technologies are greeted in this manner. Either
society as a whole or the scientific community weighs the risks
against the benefits. Many technologies involve dangers to health
(electricity, automobiles and airplanes, for example), but we've
adopted them anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks. Perhaps
the same disagreement was discussed in prehistoric times when fire
came under human control: Surely someone said, "The children may burn
their hands, so fire cannot be a good thing."

Although some scientists have expressed concern about GMOs, an expert
committee established by the Food and Drug Administration concluded
that the safety of a food depends upon its properties, not the process
used to produce it. With this definition, the safety of GMO foods must
be—and is—considered on a case-by-case basis. But the goal should be
decision by consensus, not by unanimity. Waiting until "everyone"
agrees is tantamount to eliminating the possibility of marketing any
GMO.

Q. Some food manufacturers have announced that they won't accept GMO
foods. Isn't that proof that GMOs are unsafe?

A. Companies such as Nestle, and Unilever in the European Union, and
Gerber, Heinz, Frito-Lay and Iams have dropped GM ingredients in their
foods not because they think they are unsafe, but because they are
reacting to consumer concern and the pressure of interest groups. As
firms, they have invested in building up a brand name over a period of
time, and they are concerned about losing that investment if
consumers, rightly or wrongly, choose to boycott their products
because they contain GMOs. Even a small segment of the market can make
a difference in their bottom line.

Food companies have a history of reacting to food safety concerns for
these reasons—Coca-Cola pulled a range of their products off the
market in Belgium last summer, even though only Coke was contaminated.

These food manufacturers are acting according to their perception of
consumer preference under the adage "the customer is always right."
That decision says nothing about the actual safety of the food.

Q. I've heard the argument that genetic engineering is just an
extension of traditional breeding. But how can you breed a fish and a
strawberry? You can't. Why isn't this type of "cross-breeding" seen as
possibly dangerous to human health?

A. First, it is usually inaccurate to talk about a "fish gene" or a
"strawberry gene." Many genes, which are merely blueprints for
producing specific proteins, are shared among many organisms.

So, while you cannot "breed" a fish with a strawberry, you could
theoretically take a gene from a fish—or something else—and introduce
it into a strawberry cell, which can subsequently be regenerated into
a whole strawberry plant, which will contain an extra gene and an
extra protein. (By the way, fish genes have not been introduced into
strawberries.)

In traditional breeding, many genes are transferred between related
species, without clear control over just which genes are being
transferred and which are not. Genetic engineering is far more
precise, which is, in fact, one of its greatest benefits. It allows,
for example, a single gene from a cold-hardy plant to be introduced
into a strawberry to help increase its tolerance to cold weather.
Another example: Genetic engineering has allowed the gene responsible
for making human insulin to be inserted into a certain type of
bacteria. That bacteria now makes human insulin, a product that has
been used by people with diabetes for years with no adverse effects.
This type of "cross-breeding" between humans and bacteria obviously
would be impossible without genetic engineering.

There is a natural precedent for this type of "cut and paste"
operation: The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens performs this type
of gene transfer in nature, and is in fact one of the tools molecular
breeders use to move genes around.

It's true that genetic engineering could be used to produce dangerous
products. But the same statement can be made about virtually any
technology. Scientists generally agree that products from each type of
genetic engineering should be reviewed carefully before they are
implemented.

more...

http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html