Fwd: Sample Letter from Dr. John Fagan

sal (sals@rain.org)
Wed, 20 May 1998 07:14:48 -0700

>X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
>Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:33:06 -0500
>To: info@natural-law.ca
>From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>Subject: Sample Letter from Dr. John Fagan
>
>URGENT
>
> IF YOU SEND THIS LETTER (OR ANOTHER, PERSONALIZED VERSION) BACK TO ME AT
><rwolfson@concentric.net> WITH YOUR EMAIL SIGNATURE (INCLUDING YOUR
>COUNTRY), WE WILL DELIVER THE LETTER TO YOUR COUNTRY'S CODEX DELEGATE HERE
>AT THE CODEX MEETING IN OTTAWA MAY 26-29. PLEASE ACT QUICKLY.
>
>...................................................
>
>SAMPLE LETTER
>
>Dear Delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling:
>
>I wish to commend you for accepting the substantial responsibility and hard
>work associated with ensuring that international regulations on food
>labeling are formulated in such a way as to protect the welfare of the
>citizens of our nation.
>
>I am deeply concerned that the Revised Recommendations on Labeling of Foods
>Obtained through Biotechnology, proposed by the Codex Executive Committee,
>fail to protect the safety and other interests of the consumer.
>
>I know that you have already proposed certain revisions to the Executive
>Committee's Recommendations, which would rectify some of the deficiencies
>of that document, and I commend you for your efforts. However, more
>fundamental revisions are required, if the safety of consumers, and the
>integrity of the food production and distribution system is to be
>preserved. The critical revisions that are required at this time are as
>follows:
>
>1. The definition of "food products obtained through biotechnology"
>should include, not only "foods composed of or containing genetically
>modified organisms (GMOs)," as stated in the EC's recommendations, but
>should also include "foods containing derivatives of GMOs and foods derived
>through the use of GMOs." To neglect mention of these categories would
>ignore large classes of products which may pose health problems and about
>which consumers continue to express serious concerns.
>
>2. The text should contain wording that specifies clearly that "all
>foods or food inputs that are derived by the use of genetic modification
>must be labeled as genetically modified," and that "the genes used for
>genetic modification must be indicated by name and by source organism."
>
>3. Use of the concept of "substantial equivalence" in determining
>whether or not a food should be labeled as genetically modified is
>misleading to consumers. use of this term should be rejected. Even in the
>technical literature this term is poorly defined, and experience shows
>that, in the market place, the term "substantially equivalent" is quickly
>translated into "identical," even in literature of food retailers and
>manufacturers. The result is that the consumer is mislead. Use of this weak
>terminology should not be perpetuated.
>
>4. The consumer's right to know should be explicitly acknowledged as a
>valid and essential determinant for defining how genetically modified foods
>should be labeled. To limit discussion to issues of safety and nutrition is
>far too restrictive. Codex's mandate is to protect the safety of consumers

>and to promote fair practices in the food trade. In considering the
>question of fair trade practices it is necessary to take into account all
>characteristics of food products that consumers consider of significance
>and value. The question of whether or not a food is genetically modified is
>of relevance from the perspective of fair trade practices, because the vast
>majority of consumers want to know if the foods that they are buying are
>genetically modified or not. Scientific surveys of consumer attitudes
>toward genetically modified foods indicate that consumers want full
>labeling. For instance a 1996 study, carried out by the biotechnology
>company Novartis, found that 93% of consumers wanted full labeling of
>genetically modified foods. In light of this scientific evidence, it is
>clear that failing to provide consumers with information on this point is
>misleading, if not deceptive. Given the fact that the vast majority of
>consumers want this information, the added costs associated with measures
>necessary to implement such labeling (segregation of genetically modified
>foods from conventional foods) is justified. In fact market demand is
>already stimulating the food industry to voluntarily implement such
>measures (even the American Soybean Association has called for segregation
>on these grounds).
>
>5. The Executive Committee's Recommendations should also be revised to
>acknowledge the safety risks associated with eating genetically modified
>foods and to provide consumers with the information necessary to enable
>them to avoid those risks if they so desire. Genetic modification has been
>shown scientifically to be capable of causing unintended side effects that
>can cause a genetically modified food to be hazardous to health
>(allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value). There is real
>scientific controversy at this time regarding the magnitude of the risk
>associated with these foods, but the existence of this risk is not in
>dispute. Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the scientific method make
>it impossible to design a research program that could investigate all
>possible risks and therefore that could determine with 100% certainty that
>a given genetically modified food is safe. Thus, even with safety testing,
>some risk will inevitably remain. In light of this, many consumers want to
>take a precautionary approach to genetically modified foods. They wish to
>avoid them, at least until the risks are better understood. Consequently,
>there is a clear-cut reason to require that genetically modified foods be
>labeled: Consumers need such labeling in order to give them the ability to
>choose to avoid genetically modified foods, if they are unwilling to accept
>the, yet unquantified, risks associated with them.
>
>In closing, I want to thank you for attending to the points that I have
>raised above, and thank you, as well, for the important work that you are
>doing through the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. This work is essential
>to ensure that we have safe, nourishing food, that is accurately labeled.
>Such assurances are critical to protecting the welfare of the citizens of

>our nation.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Richard Wolfson, PhD
>Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
>for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
>Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
>500 Wilbrod Street
>Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
>tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
>email: rwolfson@concentric.net
>
>Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
>contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
>previous genetic engineering news items
>Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
>See website for details.
>__________________________________________________________
>__________________________________________________________
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".