From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 19:27:11 MDT
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> If I mixed up a batch of rice in a vat, added beta-carotene,
> and then sold it as "rice", I would be arrested. The ingredients list would
> be lacking one of my ingredients.
Actually, unless the labeling requirements actually require
you to list beta-carotene, you would not get arrested.
If its a substance "naturally" found in foods you can add it.
This is the entire basis of the "nutraceutical" market.
I suspect there is some "minimum" level (1%???) below which
you do not have to list it.
Just looking at a Yogurt container, it looks like you have to
list vitamins and minerals if they are above 4% of the RDA.
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).
> I don't see why GMO rice that is
> chemically the same as rice+beta carotene should be exempt from proper
> labeling.
Because GMO "rice" will cross pollinate with "rice" it is still from a scientific
viewpoint "rice", just as I believe most, if not all of the natural strains
of rice (e.g. Indian rice, Japanese rice, wild rice) will cross-pollinate even
though they may have quite different chemical makeups (perhaps below a 5%
of mass/volume level).
> Just because the new chemical has been added through genetics
> does not make it invisible. The final product is clearly different than
> other rice. That's the whole point. Why not call it "golden-rice" and
> label it as having more beta-carotene?
If I create a product mixing GMO Golden rice with polar-bear liver,
do I have to lable the GMO rice as "Golden" even though the amount
of beta carotene it is contributing to the mix may be < 1% of the
amount being contributed by the polar-bear liver?
>
> However, I think Roundup corn is similar.
> This plant adds a pesticide to the corn.
No, this is a misperception. What is added is a protein that allows the
plant to metabolize (and therefore tolerate) round-up. There may be
residual amounts of round-up on the plant as a result of this (but
these will diminish with washing, cooking, etc.) What will be "missing"
is the probably more toxic other herbicides that are used by farmers
in lieu of round-up. I believe round-up has been shown to be "generally
accepted as safe" in that it doesn't interact with human metabolism.
There is a debate about this back in the archives someplace where people
explore the round-up issue in more detail.
> You can measure this in the finished product. Why should it not be
> included on the list of ingredients?
Measured at what level? PPM? PPB? PPT?
The toxicity of substances varies significantly with dose. By far
and away the greatest carcinogens consumed by humans are alcohol
and tobacco.
> If I sprayed Roundup into a can of corn and sold it as "corn" with no
> indication of the extra ingredient, this would be wrong. Even if I
> duplicated the exact recipe and ratio, I would be guilty of mislabeling
> food, because I didn't disclose all the ingredients.
Perhaps from your point morally, but not under the law. The law has
an some "abundance level" requirements for food labeling. This
contrasts somewhat with EPA "laws" for chemical exposure for
workers and the public (an entirely different venue from food labeling).
I believe there, things must be labled (and start getting restricted)
even at very very low exposure levels.
> The same old rules for listing all ingredients should apply. We should not
> exempt GMO food from disclosing all ingredients. Otherwise, we could mix
> up a high-salt GMO corn and market it as "salt-free".
No, that would be making a false claim. If you say "low-salt" then it
has to be "low-salt"! We are already allow the mixing of various strains
as in the various "natural" strains of corn. I don't have to label it as
"red" corn or "yellow" corn though the two are clearly different. But
if either of them is "high-salt", I can't label the product as "low-salt".
> (And again, I will note that this is my personal preference. I don't trust
> the public to be able to handle full disclosure. However, I am not ready to
> rescind the public's right to know either.)
Aha, a recognition that there may need to be "demonstration of knowledge"
based labeling! So what we need are "active labels". When the label
scans the Harvey Newstrom retina looking over it it starts dynamically
scrolling a complete list of molecular ingredients with percentages
down to parts per trillion. Combined with active calculations of the
amount Harvey will be consuming it provides a lifetime cancer risk
for each of those chemicals. It is noticed by those in the Extro community
that Harvey went shopping early in 2003 and hasn't been present at
an Extro conference since.... We miss him...
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:21 MST