From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 01:36:37 MDT
I am going to stand corrected (read as: "I was probably WRONG
on some, perhaps many counts") because Harvey seems to be
presenting reputational evidence that he has researched
this in greater detail than my simple exposure to the literature
over the last 10 years. So while I'm an "well-informed" source, he
probably weighs in as an "expert witness" on the details of the
current labeling laws (which of course vary significantly from
country to country).
I will simply make a n.b. that if he had explained that at
the beginning we might have saved some time...
So I will grant that Harvey is probably the expert on
precisely what the labels must state or may not state.
I think our differences of opinion may be wrapped up in
the detailed definition of what the FDA classifies as
an "ingredient" and a "contaminant". This is different
from the rules regarding occupational exposure which
I'm under the impression are dealt with by OSHA and/or
the EPA.
Further comments:
> > Beta-carotene may have a "funny" position since it is converted
> > to Vitamin A as needed by the body (i.e. you can't "O.D." on it).
>
> This has nothing to do with labeling laws. You seem to be just guessing
> what laws you think would make sense.
If they are classifying B.C. as Vitamin A, then I'd like to see
the rationale behind it because this is dangerous to the consumer.
You could consume a huge amount of B.C. with no increase in risk,
while consuming an equivalent amount of Vitamin A could be dangerous.
Hiding B.C. as a Vitamin A equivalent would seem to be placing the
consumer at risk.
> This has nothing to do with my point. Rice does not contain beta-carotene.
*None at all?* Or simply minute amounts?
> Golden rice does.
Yes, but according to the "greens" also in small amounts insufficient
to impact human health (I haven't verified this).
> Since I researched a massive tome on nutrients, I am probably more
> interested in food contents than most people. I am frustrated that
> corporate lawyers would choose to restrict the labeling of food contents
> because it would confuse the public.
So, we are again back to the "need-to-know" combined with "I'm qualified to
evaluate this information" criteria. I have no objection to the
information being made available to such individuals. Actually
what the corporate lawyers are presumably restricting is the
need to identify something that "breeds" as rice as something
other than "rice". If the law is written correctly one could
differentiate between food with "rice" and "Golden rice" not
by the "rice" ingredient label but by the label listing the
quantity of B.C. in the product. This is how it should be
since its the quantity of the nutrient on which you should
be focused, not whether the B.C. came from "rice" or was
added as a chemical ingredient. [I'll note as an aside
there are still extensive debates in the literature regarding
the medical/health significance of the various benfits (or "harms")
of the "natural" vs. "synthetic" forms of Vitamin E and perhaps
B.C.]
> This seems to be dumbing down information to the lowest common denominator.
Yep, sad but true. People want (and presumably need) "distilled"
information.
> Just at a gut level, it seems to be anti-consumer, anti-market,
> anti-knowledge and anti-choice. It might be the best public policy,
> but it goes against my libertarian views for anarchy, self-determination,
> and fully informed self governance. But that's just my opinion.
> Obviously, most people disagree.
I don't disagree, but I'm willing to be a humanitarian pragmatist.
Most people currently do not have the luxury of having educated
themselves about these topics to the degree that I or Harvey have.
As a result they will "believe" whatever they are told by people
with whom they have established a "trust" relationship without
bothering to verify whether those individuals have a reputation
worth paying attention to in the area under discussion.
When we can extend the longevity of individuals so they can spend
a dozen years studying chemistry, biochemistry and nutrition such that
they can read a distilled (or even an extended G.C./M.S. based) food label
and really understand what it means then I'm in favor of giving them that
information. Until then I'm in favor of giving them the "one size
fits all" solution that seems most likely to increase the probability
that the majority of them will be able to make a fully informed decision
about the products they consume in the future.
I want to constrain the Grim Reaper, not be an indirect field agent.
A little information is a bad thing. A lot of information isn't
much better if you die before you can finish reading the fine print.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:21 MST