EFSA: Food safety – politics and science simply cannot mix - by Martin Banks.

Trying his best to sound non-partisan, the former president pointed out that the waves of refugees coming to Europe could be linked to conflicts caused by food shortages brought on by climate change. Which is why, Obama argues “[We need] better seeds, better storage, crops that grow with less water, crops that grow in harsher climates,” especially since “I let the science determine my attitudes about fFood production and new technologies… It’s okay for us to be cautious about how we approach these new technologies but I don’t think we can be close-minded to it.”

President Obama’s speech comes at a crucial time, as the safety of the food chain has come under the spotlight again in Europe, raising profound questions about the interactions between science, politics and new technologies, interactions that can be so toxic that they actually yield results that are harmful to consumers.

Just look at the wrangling currently unfolding over formaldehyde, a naturally occurring compound commonly used to keep fowl (and humans) from contracting food poisoning. The European Commission is having a hard time re-approving the use of the substance as a feed additive due to strong opposition from activists and certain member states.

The deadlock over formaldehyde shouldn’t have happened: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the compound does not cause cancer could be authorized as a feed additive as long as worker protection measures were taken.  In 2014, the agency concluded that “there is no health risk for consumers exposed to the substance through the food chain.”  Its conclusions are in line with the world’s leading scientific bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Even so, the conclusions of the widely-respected EU agency have been called into question by, among others, the Health, and Environment Alliance (HEAL), a Brussels-based NGO, which managed to persuade Poland and Spain to take unilateral action and stop putting the substance in chicken feed.

The consequences were quick to follow. Weeks after Poland gave its order, a widespread salmonella outbreak – traced to a Polish farm – led to the deaths of two people, a 5-year-old in Croatia and another person in Hungary. Soon afterwards, EFSA reported that 218 confirmed cases and 252 probable cases of salmonella sourced from Polish farms were recorded between May 2016 and the end of February this year.

The formaldehyde debate shows the serious health repercussions that happen when science and politics clash. Another good example is that of the herbicide glyphosate. Originally marketed under the trade name Roundup, glyphosate accounts for about 25 per cent of the global herbicide market. In the EU, glyphosate-based herbicides are used for weed control for a wide range of crops including cereals, oilseed rape, maize, beans and sugar beet. Several European countries, including Germany, use glyphosate herbicides on almost half of their total crop area.

However, despite the fact that EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the EPA, a joint WHO/FAO committee and a swathe of other regulators concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, a barrage of criticism seeking to discredit these institutions’ competence as scientific bodies followed. At the forefront of the attack on EFSA were the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute, which both continued to actively promote the alleged glyphosate-cancer link.

Read more: #EFSA: Food safety – politics and science simply cannot mix : EU Reporter

US Congress - GMO Labeling: The Monsanto Protection Act is back -- worse than before - impact on EU TTIP negotiations

The biggest threat to GMO labeling that we ever saw could soon become law if people don’t react now.

US Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo, Monsanto’s hand-picked representative in Washington, has combined his anti-GMO labeling bill, the “DARK Act,” with the Monsanto Protection Act – and it’s even worse than before.

This newly revised Monsanto Protection Act would not only prevent states from enacting their own GMO labeling laws, but it would go even further by nullifying all existing restrictions on GMO crops already on the books.

This unbelievable power grab by Monsanto and its Republican supporters is quickly making its way through Congressional committees and could be up for a final vote by the end of the month.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a leading advocate for GMO labeling and major opponent of Rep. Pompeo’s legislation, the new Monsanto Protection Act would:

• Block all state laws requiring mandatory GMO labeling, including Vermont’s landmark labeling law;
• Prevent the FDA from establishing a national mandatory GMO labeling program;
• Possibly block non-GMO claims until the USDA creates a non-GMO certification program, which could take up to 10 years;
• Block all state and local efforts to protect rural communities and farmers from the impacts of GMO crops;
• Prevent claims by food companies that non-GMO foods are better than GMO ones.

The consequences of this legislation for the US food system would be drastic and widespread.

US State-level efforts to label GMO foods that have already passed in states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut would be nullified. All local oversight and restrictions on genetically modified crops would be prohibited. Laws and regulations in states and communities with GMO-free agricultural zones, including in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, could be completely overturned.

Monsanto has significantly beefed up its lobbying efforts to pass this bill, spending nearly a half million dollars per month in total lobbying and boasting that it has contacted every single member of Congress.

Recent polling shows that even though more than 90% of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling, corporate money  is being used to influence Congressional legislators to vote against preventive health measures and consumer choices provided by food labeling.

The EU negotiating team at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) are hopefully also aware of the going's on in the US Congress in relation to GMO's and food labeling. 

New EU food labeling rules came into force in the EU on December 13, 2014 to ensure that consumers receive clearer and more accurate information about what they buy and eat.

The new EU  rules will now even  force restaurants and cafés to list 14 different allergens in the menus - including nuts, gluten, lactose, soy or milk.Displaying allergens was until then only mandatory for pre-packed foods.

Nano components will also have to be included in the ingredients list. Oils will need to refer to the plants used in their production, such as sunflower, palm or olive.

Fresh meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry will need to carry a mandatory origin label, with a font size of at least 1.2 milimetres.   

As one EU parliamentarian noted: "we must keep that unlabeled American Junk-Food out off the European food supplies". 

EU-Digest