GMO Food Has Been Quietly, Deceitfully Renamed

Monsanto quietly renames GMO ingredients on food labels

GMO food is harmful to human health. Genetically modified organisms, when fed to humans, cause serious health problems including cancer.

So what does Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, do about this silent killer? It quietly rebrands the term ‘GMO’ with the new more obscure term ‘biofortified’ to trick consumers into thinking they are not eating food that has been genetically modified.

Natural Blaze reports: There are no power grabs out of reach for Monsanto – they are now attempting the most ridiculous propaganda scheme of all. They are attempting to manipulate definitions under Codex Alimentarius that would allow GMOs to fall under the classification of “biofortified” foods.

Codex is a collection of guidelines, codes and other recommendations relating to foods, food production, and food safety – that were created under the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. If you are thinking this is arbitrary and wondering why our country should pay any attention to such guidelines, you are heading in the right direction… In the late 1990s, consumers feared that their vitamins and supplements would move to prescription-only under Codex guidelines.

According to National Health Federation (The NHF is the only natural health advocate that gets a seat at Codex, by the way!):

It all started out innocently enough several Codex Nutrition committee meetings ago when an international nongovernmental organization (INGO) named the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (and sponsored by Harvest Plus) had one of its country contacts introduce a proposed new work at Codex. (Only member countries may introduce new work at Codex, not INGOs.) Harvest Plus’ method of increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops consists of the time-honored, conventional way of cross-breeding, not genetic engineering.  Harvest Plus, for example, will increase the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that malnourished populations in developing nations will receive better nutrition.

The new work at the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) was simple: Craft a definition for Biofortification. That definition could then be used uniformly around the World to apply to those foods conventionally fortified with higher levels of nutrients and everyone would be on the same page whenever the term “biofortified” was used. Indeed, the National Health Federation (NHF) was an early supporter at Codex of this definition.

Poisoned in the Womb

This year’s CCNFSDU meeting – hosted by the German Health Ministry in Berlin, Germany the first full week of December 2017 – witnessed a lively debate about not only how to define Biofortification but also whether or not the very word “Biofortification” should be used at all. However, this was not the beginning of the debate. The NHF had two delegates there.

At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, the Chairwoman Pia Noble (married to a former Bayer executive) had started off the Biofortification-definition discussion by giving her incorrect personal opinion that the definition should be as broad as possible and that recombinant technology should be included. Her statement, though, directly contradicted Australia’s admission at the 2015 meeting that if the Committee were to refer to the original 2012 document on the scope of Biofortification, we would see that Biofortification only refers to conventional breeding and so we should clearly exclude GM techniques. At last year’s CCNFSDU meeting, however, Australia was silent on the issue.

What do you think?

900 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 0

Upvotes: 0

Upvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%