Creepy

I've written here before a couple of times about genetically modified foods, and how they frankly terrify me. Without going too deep into my reasons or the details, suffice it to say we have a new winner in the Creepy Food Olympics.

Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk, and hope to be selling it in supermarkets within three years. 

The milk produced by the transgenic cows is identical to the human variety and has the same immune-boosting and antibacterial qualities as breast milk, scientists at China's Agricultural University in Beijing say. 

The transgenic herd of 300 was bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows. 

The technology was similar to that used to produce Dolly the sheep. 

The milk is still undergoing safety tests but with government permission it will be sold to consumers as a more nutritious dairy drink than cow's milk.

And why wouldn't the government give their permission? Governments are experts on unintended consequences, right? If they don't see anything wrong with this, then what could possibly go wrong?

[Sky News]

Quote of the Week

For this week's Quote of the Week, I was incredibly tempted to give the honors to Judge Jed Rakoff, who refused to accept a settlement in a mortgage-related case against Citigroup ("prosecuted" by the SEC), on the basis that the merits of the case were not sufficiently understood to grant Citi immunity from future prosecution. In doing so, Judge Rakoff sternly rebuked the long-standing practice of fining banks for fraud rather than forcing them to face real prosecution, casting doubt on whether the banks will be able to continue escaping criminal liability for their actions.

Judge Rakoff's decision has faced a significant amount of scrutiny from people who think that the SEC "can't afford" to prosecute cases like these, because the cases are too expensive and the banks have such amazing legal resources. For exactly these reasons, it has long been my contention that the SEC cannot afford not to prosecute these cases.

For too long, the Feds have fallen into the settlement trap, allowing banks to simply incorporate these occasional (relatively small) fines into their business models as a standard cost of business. As a result, banks have promulgated various types of fraud for decades now, and this will continue unabated until the courts take notice and say "no more". This ruling could potentially be an important first step, and it's a dynamic that Matt Taibbi explores in more detail (and with great insight) in this video.

And yet, despite the potential importance of this ruling, it won't be my Quote of the Week this week. That's because earlier today, I came across an article that made me gasp, and not in a good way. In a broader article on food safety and the corners that many food manufacturers cut in order to sneak unsafe food into grocery stores and cafeterias, I came across this gem of a paragraph that almost makes me want to avoid all food that I didn't personally grow for myself. 

This week's QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"The FDA allows up to 60 insect fragments per 100 grams of chocolate before the food is thrown out. Same goes for corn, which the agency deems suitable for consumption if it contains only one larvae that is larger than 3 millimetres. Pineapple doesn't get thrown out until it overtakes a 20 percent mold count."
                                - Daily Mail

Yuck. I've written (ranted) about the FDA here before, arguing that they typically seem to have the best interests of the food companies--rather than the consumer--in mind. I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know about food production and/or food safety, but I can't imagine that any food company in the country actually considers these guidelines to be particularly stringent or difficult to meet. I'll just have to grow my own corn from now on, I guess...

[Daily Mail]

Jesus...

Look, I'll be completely upfront here and say that I've got no love for (or trust of) the Food & Drug Administration (oh, or the USDA...but that's a topic for a different blog post). But the latest initiative to come out of the FDA, as described in this New York Times article, is just a wee bit unbecoming.

Federal drug regulators unveiled 36 proposed warning labels for cigarette packages on Wednesday, including some that are striking pictures of smoking’s effects.

Designed to cover half of a pack’s surface area, the new labels are intended to spur smokers to quit by providing graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers. The labels are required under a law passed last year that gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

The proposed labels include pictures of a man smoking from a tracheostomy tube inserted into his throat; a diseased lung; and a woman holding a baby in a smoke-filled room. The proposals stayed away from some of the more gruesome labels used in other countries, where pictures of blackened teeth and diseased mouths are common.

Look, I understand the health risks of tobacco, and the public hazard of secondhand smoke. I agree with educating the public about these risks, and I'm a big proponent of smoking bans in restaurants and bars. But this is going a little too far...

At the very least, the graphics proposed by the FDA are distasteful. But worse, I think these warnings speak to a larger contradiction within our federal watchdog agencies.

Remember, this is the same FDA that steadfastly refuses to place any sort of labeling on foods with genetically modified content (or to allow non-GMO foods to advertise themselves as such), despite scientific evidence that shows health risks from GMO foods. This inconsistency is incredibly troubling, and leads to significant questions regarding whose interests the FDA is truly serving.

We should not allow federal agencies to declare outright war on one industry (which is exactly what they are doing by devoting a full HALF of the surface area of cigarette packaging to these graphic warnings), while they simultaneously allow and encourage potentially risky behavior in others (genetically modified salmon being just one example). Too many government agencies are being allowed to pick winners and losers in our economy, and we simply can't allow this type of mission creep.

The USDA contradiction that I linked to in my introductory paragraph above is another massive failure of government, and shows how conflicting interests can pull and tug our watchdog agencies in very strange and inefficient ways.

Personally, I'm not looking forward to seeing these warnings on cigarette packaging any more so than I'd welcome a picture of an obese man undergoing gastric bypass surgery on a bag of Cheetos. Educating the public is one thing; using scare tactics to undermine a specific product is another thing entirely.


[New York Times]

GMO and the FDA

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been in the headlines a lot lately, as it has considered whether or not to approve genetically modified salmon. At the heart of the debate is the FDA's policies on food labeling--its policies dictate that once a food has been approved for sale, it cannot and will not require the manufacturer to label it as "genetically modified".

The Washington Post has reported that, in addition to approving genetically modified "Frankenfish" salmon without requiring a GMO [genetically modified organism] label, the FDA will also be banning the inclusion of any references to not containing genetically modified content on food items which are GMO free.

The FDA, which has been under intense pressure from GM interests to approve the modified salmon without requiring any labeling, stated that it could not require a label on the salmon because the agency determined that the altered fish are not "materially different" from other salmon. Apparently, the agency is using even the same, and even flimsier, justifications to force food companies to hide the truth if their products are GM/GMO free - much to the delight of the multi-billion dollar GM industries. (Emphasis mine)

This has to make you uncomfortable. I don't honestly know for sure whether there's a "material difference" between genetically modified and conventional food, despite anecdotal evidence indicating that farm animals refuse to eat GMO corn and soy, and drawing potential links between GMO food and allergies. But I think that the FDA's arguments here are paper thin. According to the Post article,

"Extra labeling only confuses the consumer," said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices."

The FDA defends its approach, saying it is simply following the law, which prohibits misleading labels on food. And the fact that a food, in this case salmon, is produced through a different process, is not sufficient to require a label.

This kind of idiocy (and hiding behind "policies") represents the height of hypocrisy. Deliberately hiding information from the consumer--and then pretending that it is to the consumer's benefit--is the work of a con artist. The FDA has gone out of its way to inform the consumer in other arenas, requiring incredibly detailed nutritional information on product labels and forcing chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menus. Their approach in those cases seems to be that the more informed the consumer becomes, the better food choices he will make. That their approach here seems so different--hiding information instead of providing more--indicates that the GMO food manufacturers have more political clout than anyone should allow.

Memo to the FDA: don't decide what will and won't confuse me, and pretend to be looking out for my best interests. That's not your job (and remember, you work for me). Provide me with all relevant information, and let me make my own decisions. This kind of ill-advised governmental paternalism is not in anyone's best interests--except maybe Monsanto.

[Washington Post]
[Natural News]