Rapport om GMO-mad fra et Codex-arbejdsgruppemøde

En rapport fra en Codex-arbejdsgruppe om GMO-mærkning i Oslo, 6-7/2.07, af Tamara Theresa Mosegaard

17.2.2007

På et to-dages møde i Oslo, Norge, mødtes en gruppe delegerede forleden for at diskutere internationale Codex Retningslinier for mærkning af fødevareprodukter, der er eller er ikke genetisk modificerede (GMO).

Pudsigt nok, mente en række vigtige landes delegerede at forbrugerne ikke er kloge nok til at forstå eller håndtere en sådan information. De mente altså, at det var bedst ikke at vide for meget.

National Health Federation (NHF, USA), den eneste helsefrihedsorganisation med ret til at deltage med taleret på disse møder, havde udsendt sin egen delegation bestående af Tamara Thèrésa Mosegaard (Danmark) og Ingrid Franzon (Sverige), for at argumentere for menneskers ret til at vide, hvad de indtager, særligt når det gælder GMO-mad.

NHF gik i verbal clinch med lande som USA, Argentina, Canada og Mexico (de største korn-eksporterende lande), som alle havde den koordinerede indstilling, at forbrugere ikke behøvede at blive informeret, om de spiste GMO-mad eller ej.

Andre lande, som de 27 europæiske medlemsstater (EU, som inkluderede Østrig, Frankrig, Tyskland, Irland, Italien og Sverige) samt Brasilien, Ghana, Indien, Japan, Marokko, Norge og Schweiz, opponerede stærkt mod at skjule disse informationer fra forbrugerne.

Resultatet var til tider melodramatiske og veltilrettelagte strategier udført af de korn-eksporterende lande, der benyttede en variation af “høflig” vrede og aggression, manipulerende sprogbrug og taktikker (selvom alle tilstedeværende forstod, at de ellers ville afslutte Arbejdsgruppens møderække ved at nægte at deltage) i deres forsøg på at stoppe en udvikling hen imod globale Codex-retningslinier om GMO-mærkning.

Mødet begynder

Det begyndte i al venlighed med den norske “fødevarestyrelse” kaldet “Mattilsynet,” som var vært for to-dages mødet i Codex Alimentarius’ Arbejdsgruppe om emnet “Mærkning af Fødevarer og Fødevareingredienser Tilvejebragt gennem Specifikke Teknikker af Genetisk Modificering (og ”Genetic Engineering”).

Mødet fandt sted på Bristol Hotel i Oslo, Norge på to meget kolde dage i den første uge af februar 2007. Udover NHF, var 24 nationale delegationer og fire internationale NGO’ere tilstede, samt en gruppe observatører, medarbejdere og oversættere, i alt 77 personer.

Norge, Argentina og Ghana var fælles møde-ordstyrere, og de åbnede med et forslag om at man diskuterede og udviklede en tabel over de forskellige mærkningsmuligheder.

Kort efter begyndte en større uenighed mellem verdens korn-eksportører og korn-importører at blive tydelig, fordi korn-eksportørerne gav udtryk for deres holdning: At da der fandtes forskellige forbrugere i mange lande, behøvede disse ikke at få information om produktionsmetoderne af GMO-mad, og, hvis informationerne blev givet, kunne sådanne blive set som en advarsel, hvilket var vildledende og skadende – for GMO-industrierne.

Korn-importører mener, at GMO-mad er sikker, men går ind for mærkning

Korn-importørerne var temmelig overbeviste om, at deres videnskabelige risikoanalyse-procedurer var nok til at bevise at GMO-maden var sikker, når den nåede frem til forbrugernes borde.

Det var dog alligevel en positiv oplevelse at høre, at importørerne anerkendte vigtigheden af forbrugerinformation via ordentlig mærkning af GMO-mad.

Tamara Thèrésa Mosegaard (fra organisationen May Day), som var NHF-delegationens talskvinde på Oslo-mødet og medlem af NHFs rådgivningskomité, siger,

“Det var mærkeligt at høre EU tale om, at videnskabelig risikoanalyse beviste sikkerheden ved GMO-mad, og om hvor nødvendigt det var at forbrugerne er velinformerede, når jeg tænker tilbage på de mange års diskussioner i Codex Alimentarius’ (CCNFSDU) komitémøder om at etablere ”øvre sikre (maksimum) grænser” af vitaminer og mineraler via videnskabelig risiko (sikkerheds) analyse baseret på videnskabelig data”.

Det var mærkeligt, fordi i EU er mange helseprodukter ved at blive registrerede som lægemidler, og enten venter de på at blive testet ved kostbare ”risikoanalyse”-procedurer, eller de er allerede blevet forbudt.

Så vi forbrugere er blevet fortalt, at vitaminer og mineraler er farlige for vores sensitive helbred, men at vi kan holde os sunde ved at indtage en velafbalanceret GMO- og beriget mad. Måske nogle tror på det, men de fleste forbrugere er ikke så uvidende”.

Tamara Mosegaard tilføjer, “På grund af dette, er naturlig helse, sundhed, helsefrihed og informations- og valgfrihed blevet vigtige emner, især i Europa.

Mere end 70 % af forbrugerne i en række EU-lande siger nej til GMO-mad, og størstedelen har ønsket obligatorisk mærkning, så vi i det mindste ved, hvad det er vi køber og spiser”.

Det korn-eksporterende imperium slår igen

Ved en yderst velkoordineret manøvre argumenterede de amerikanske, canadiske og argentinske delegerede for, at de tvivlede på værdien af forbrugerinformation, at de ønskede at forhindre “snyd og bedrag” og at det var vigtigt at se, hvordan forbrugerne brugte informationer fra GMO-mærkning, da disse kunne blive set som advarsler, hvilket ville være vildledende.

Sammenlign dette med mange års proportionsforvrænget misinformation fra medieadvarsler og reguleringsautoriteter om vitaminer og mineralers ”farlighed”, som medfører unødvendige nationale og globale Codex-restriktioner for naturlige og sunde substanser.

USAs repræsentant, Dr. Barbara Schneeman fra den amerikanske Food and Drug Administration (FDA – som svarer til en blanding af den danske fødevare- og lægemiddelstyrelse), var specielt ophidset og skarp i diskussionerne.

Hun forbløffede ved – i et ophidset øjeblik – at komme til at sige, at de [FDA / regeringen] kun ville give forbrugerne den information som de regnede med, forbrugerne ville forstå.

Senere udenfor mødet, ophidset over den overvejende modstand mod korn-eksportørernes holdning om, at forbrugerne ville blive “forvirrede”, hvis de så produkter mærket med “GMO” på butikshylderne, erklærede Dr. Schneeman på utroligste vis, at Amerikas ”First Amendment” (1.ste tilføjelse til de forenede staters forfatning; en grundlovsparagraf, som garanterer amerikanerne religions-, presse- og ytringsfrihed, red.) forhindrede FDA / Amerikas regering i at informere forbrugerne om GMO i deres fødevarer!

Forfatningens 1.ste tilføjelse siger klart at:
“Kongressen skal ikke skabe nogen lov på basis af religion, eller forhindre fri udøvelse (af en sådan, red.); eller forhindre ytringsfrihed, eller pressefrihed; eller folkets ret til fredeligt at forsamles, og til at klage til regeringen over overgreb”.

Amerikas Højesteret, såvel som en række mindre amerikanske domstole, har for længst afgjort, at den amerikanske grundlovsparagraf, ”First Amendment”, ikke har og aldrig har haft til hensigt at undertrykke ytringsfrihed, men derimod at fremme den.

FDA har da heller ikke selv holdt sig tilbage med at udøve kontrol over indholdet mærkningsetiketter af fødevareprodukter i USA, så hvorfor valgte FDA nu denne højst mærkværdige vinkel, at amerikansk lovgivning forhindrer FDA i at udøve kontrol i sagen om GMO-mad?

Kunne det skyldes, at kæmpe bioteknologiske producenter var meget tæt på Dr. Schneeman mellem møderne og kunne have haft en indflydelse på denne afvigelse?

Risikoforebyggelse ikke noget problem

Forebyggelse af risiko lod ikke til at udgøre noget problem for korn-eksportørerne i Arbejdsgruppen.

Den argentinske delegation lod endog til at synes, at det ligefrem kunne være uetisk at nægte forbrugerne GMO-mad. Samtlige korn-eksportører argumenterede kraftigt for omkostnings-effektivitet mht. GMO-mad – for GMO-industrien naturligvis.

Måske ikke særligt overraskende, når man tager de enorme pengesummer i betragtning som investeres i denne teknologi, baseret på sprøjtegifte samt patenter på ‘terminator’-teknologi (der genetisk kan slukke for planters evne til videre at formere sig ved bestøvning, men kan tænde for denne igen via kemikalietilførsel).

De fleste delegerede så ikke genteknologi som en uigenkaldelig trussel til skade for forbrugerne, fordi, som korn-eksportørerne udtalte: “Denne teknologi har været i brug i 10-15 år uden problemer.”

De konventionelle lægemidlers mange alvorlige virkninger har faktisk ikke vist sig før mange årtier efter deres introduktion på markedet, så vi skal nok ikke regne med at den ophidsede sikkerhedsdebat om GMO-mad er ovre lige foreløbig.

NHF svarer igen

Med det kendte citat i erindring af den amerikanske Chefdommer ved Nürnbergs Krigsforbryderdomstol, Robert H. Jackson (som sagde, “Det er ikke regeringens opgave at sørge for at borgeren ikke laver fejltagelser; det er borgerens opgave at sørge for, at regeringen ikke laver fejltagelser”), fortalte NHF Arbejdsgruppen, at NHF var tilstede for de forbrugere der er betænkelige ved manglende information og deres frihed til at vælge.

Som et svar til Argentina, Canada og Mexico – som havde sagt, at fandtes mange forskellige typer forbrugere og ikke alle var bekymrede over GMO-mad – udtalte NHF: 
“Vi er alle forbrugere, men vi er her for at repræsentere de bekymrede forbrugere/borgere. Der findes mange forskellige holdninger og betænkeligheder. Argentina bragte etiske og religiøse grunde på banen, og der er også bekymring om sundhed, sikkerhed, information og valgfrihed”, og NHF gentog, at organisationen var der for at give stemme til de betænkelige forbrugere.

Hen imod mødets slutning mødet, støttede NHF de delegeredes holdning om øget forbrugerinformation som udtrykt af Marokko, Japan, EU og forbrugerorganisationen Consumers International, ved at tilføje, “National Health Federation går ind for fuld åbenhed om GMO-indhold via mærkning af mad, så forbrugere er i stand til at tage et informeret valg i forhold til deres sundhed, og (NHF) går derfor ind for obligatorisk mærkning.

Vi støtter information og gennemsigtighed, hvilket er et ekstraordinært behov på dette højteknologiske område med dets mulige og sandsynlige indvirkning på menneskers fremtid. Forsøg har vist, at der er grund til at udvise forsigtighed”.

Mødet endte med et mandat til at fortsætte GMO-mærkningsmøderne, hvilket ikke behagede de korn-eksporterende delegationer synderligt, da de hellere så emnet glemt, så GMO-produkter fortsat skjult kunne sælges sammen med non-GMO-produkter, med forbrugere saligt uvidende om forskellen.

 

Oversat af T. T. Mosegaard

 

 

___________________February 17, 2007______________________

 

Original Press release

When It Comes to GM Food, Some Say Ignorance is Bliss

A Report on the February 2007 Oslo Codex Working Group on GM Labelling

At a recent two-day meeting in Oslo, Norway, a sizeable group of delegates met to discuss establishing international Codex Guidelines for disclosing on food-product labels whether or not a food was genetically modified (GM).

Amazingly enough, a number of important countries’ delegates argued that consumers were not smart enough to understand and handle such information. Ignorance is bliss, they essentially claimed.

The National Health Federation (NHF), the only health-freedom organization with the right to attend and have its voice heard at these meetings, sent its own delegation – Tamara Thèrésa Mosegaard and Ingrid Franzon – to argue for the right of all persons to know what they are consuming, especially if it is GM food.

In doing so, the NHF verbally sparred with such countries as the United States, Argentina, Canada, and Mexico (the largest grain-exporting countries), all of whom took the carefully coordinated position that consumers should not be informed as to whether they are eating GM foods or not.

Other countries, such as the 27 European nation-states (the EU, including Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden), Brazil, Ghana, India, Japan, Morocco, Norway and Switzerland, strongly opposed hiding such information from the consumer.

The result was at times melodramas employing plans obviously orchestrated by the Grain Exporters, who variously used “polite” anger, “polite” aggression, and manipulative language and tactics (with everyone else understanding that they might end the meetings through “nonparticipation”) in an attempt to stop progress towards any Codex Guidelines that would require GM disclosure.

The Meeting Begins
It all began amicably enough with the Norwegian “FDA,” called “Mattilsynet,” hosting a two-day Codex Alimentarius Working Group meeting on the subject of the “Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification / Genetic Engineering.”

The meeting took place at the Bristol Hotel in Oslo, Norway on two very cold days in the first week of February 2007. Besides the NHF, there were 24 national delegations and four other international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) present, plus a scattering of individual observers, staff members, and interpreters, some 77 individuals in all.

Norway, Argentina, and Ghana acted jointly as chairmen of the meeting, which opened with a proposal that a table of the various labelling approaches be discussed and developed.

Soon enough, a large rift between the Grain Exporters and the Grain Importers became evident, as the Grain Exporters expounded their views that because consumers were different from each other, they did not all need much information about the production methods of GM foods, and if it were given to them, then it could be deemed a “warning” and therefore misleading and damaging to them – and the industry.

The Grain Importers Think GM Foods Are Safe But Want Them Labelled 
The Grain Importers strongly believed that their scientific risk-assessment procedures were enough to ensure that GM foods were safe when they reached consumers’ tables, but it was a positive experience to hear that they recognized the importance of consumer information through proper labelling of GM food products.

Tamara Thèrésa Mosegaard(from May Day), who was the NHF delegation spokesperson at the Oslo meeting and is on the NHF Advisory Board, notes, “However, it was very strange to hear the European Community (EC) talk about scientific risk assessment proving the safety of the GM foods, and the need for consumers to be well informed, when I remember the many years of discussions at the Codex Alimentarius (CCNFSDU) Committee meetings about establishing ‘upper safe (maximum) levels of vitamins and minerals through scientific risk (safety) assessment based upon scientific data.’

Strange, when in the EC many health products are now registered as pharmaceuticals and are either waiting to be tested by very costly procedures because of ‘risk assessment,’ or have already been banned.

So, in essence, we – the consumers – have been told that vitamins and minerals can be dangerous to our sensitive health but that we will only stay healthy by eating a balanced, GM functional-food diet. Maybe some people believe this, but most consumers are not that ignorant.”

Ms. Mosegaard adds, “Because of this, natural health, health freedom, and freedom of information and choice have become huge issues, especially in Europe, with more than 70% of the consumers in several countries saying no to GM food, and a majority wanting mandatory labelling so that at least they will know what they are buying and eating.”

The Grain Exporting Empire Strikes Back
In well-coordinated maneuvering, the U.S., Canadian, and Argentinean delegates talked about how they doubted the value of consumer information, how they wanted to prevent “fraud and deception,” and how it was important first to see how the consumers were using the GM labelling information as the labels might be seen as a warning, which would be misleading.

Compare these viewpoints with the many years of disproportionate misinformation disseminated through media warnings and these countries’ own regulatory agencies about the “dangers” of vitamins and minerals, which are leading to unnecessary national and global Codex restrictions upon natural and healthy substances.

The U.S. representative, Dr. Barbara Schneeman of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, was especially pointed and heated in her discussions. Amazingly enough, in an unconstitutional flight of fancy, she claimed that they [the FDA and government] should only give consumers the information that the government thought they would understand.

And later, outside the meeting, Dr. Schneeman, quite upset that there was sustained opposition to the Grain Exporters’ position that consumers would be “confused” if they saw products labelled as “GM” on store shelves, claimed incredibly enough that the First Amendment prevents the government from informing consumers about the GM content or origin of their food products!

Yet, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states quite clearly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The United States Supreme Court, as well as a number of lesser American courts, has long held in numerous rulings that the First Amendment is not, and never was, intended to suppress free speech but rather to encourage its free exercise.

Regardless, the FDA itself has never been reluctant to assert control over food-product label content in the United States, so why is it now curiously taking the position that American law prevents it from doing so in the case of GM foods?

Perhaps the GM food producers that were also represented at this meeting and that were practically sitting on Dr. Schneeman’s lap might have had something to do with this aberrant change.

Risk Prevention Not an Issue Here
Also strangely enough, for the Grain Exporters in this Working Group, risk prevention did not seem to be an issue at all. The Argentinean delegation implied that it would be unethical to refuse GM foods to consumers.

And all of the Grain Exporters strongly argued the cost effectiveness – to the GM industry of course – of GM food products, not a huge surprise considering how much money is at stake with this technology, based upon highly-persistent and toxic pesticides as well as patents on ‘terminator’ technology (which genetically can switch off a plant’s ability to further germinate and would require chemicals to switch it back on).

Most delegates did not see GM technology as threatening irreversible harm to consumers because, as a Grain Exporter delegation stated, “the technology has had 10-15 years of use without any problems.”

Yet, as with the deleterious effects of many pharmaceutical drugs, which did not appear for some decades after their initial use, the heated debate on safety issues concerning GM foods is far from over.

NHF Argues Back
In remembering the famous quote by the American Chief Judge at the Nuremberg War-Crimes Tribunal, Robert H. Jackson (who said “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error”), the NHF told the Working Group’s attendees that NHF was present because consumers are concerned about their freedom of choice through lack of information.

And as a response to Argentina, Canada, and Mexico – who had stated that there are many types of consumers and not all were concerned about GM foods – the NHF stated that “We are all consumers, but that we are here to represent concerned consumers-citizens.

There are different views and concerns. Argentina brought up ethical and religious reasons, there are also health, safety, information, and freedom-of-choice concerns,” and the NHF reiterated that it was there to voice the views of concerned consumers.

At the end, the NHF supported the views on consumer information expressed by Morocco, Japan, the EC, and Consumers International, adding further that: 
“The National Health Federation supports full disclosure of GM ingredients on food labels so that consumers may make fully-informed health choices, and therefore is in favor of mandatory labelling. 
We are in favor of information and transparency, which is extraordinarily needed in this area because of its highly technological nature and its possible and probable effect on the future of mankind. Studies have shown that there are reasons to be concerned.”

The meeting ended with a mandate to continue its work on GM labelling, much to the dislike of the Grain Exporter delegations which would rather see this issue discarded so that GM food products could be sold in anonymity along with non-GMO products, with consumers blissfully ignorant of the difference.

The (Inter)National Health Federation
P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, 
California 91017 USA 
Tel: 1 (626) 357-2181 
Fax: 1 (626) 303-0642
E-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com
Website: www.thenhf.com