Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA" [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)45. More here on the general issue of safety of food additives.
OVERVIEW: http://www.pewhealth.org/projects/food-additives-project-85899367220
http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/pew-examines-gaps-in-toxicity-data-for-chemicals-allowed-in-food-85899493633
Aug 14, 2013
Project: Food Additives Project
The peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology published a paper from The Pew Charitable Trusts' food additives project examining the data used to make safety recommendations for chemicals added to food sold in the United States. The analysis of three major sources of toxicology information found significant gaps in the data for chemicals that are added to food and food packaging.
Pews analysis reveals:
The paper analyzed and compared data from the FDAs Priority-based Assessment of Food Additives database, the Accelrys Toxicity Database of chemical studies, and the U.S. National Library of Medicines TOXLINE database to determine what testing has been done.
The authors note that the current regulatory structure for food additive safety in the United States was approved by Congress in 1958 and allows manufacturers to add chemicals deemed "generally recognized as safe" or "GRAS," to food without review by the FDA. Manufacturers sometimes voluntarily report such safety decisions to FDA.
<>
[center][/center]
Aug 14, 2013
Project: Food Additives Project
The peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology published a paper from The Pew Charitable Trusts' food additives project examining the data used to make safety recommendations for chemicals added to food sold in the United States. The analysis of three major sources of toxicology information found significant gaps in the data for chemicals that are added to food and food packaging.
Pews analysis reveals:
* The Food and Drug Administration or industry decided that almost two-thirds of known additives were safe without having fed the additives to lab animals. This is based on Pews analysis of data reported in FDA, National Institutes of Health, or other leading toxicology databases.
* FDAs own database on chemicals added directly to food indicates that:
Only one in five chemicals has been evaluated using the simplest lab animal test recommended by FDA to evaluate safety.
Only one in eight chemicals that FDA recommended be evaluated for reproductive or development problems had evidence it was tested for these effects.
* The lack of data means that often we dont know whether these chemicals pose a health risk to the hundreds of millions of Americans who eat food with untested chemical additives.
The paper analyzed and compared data from the FDAs Priority-based Assessment of Food Additives database, the Accelrys Toxicity Database of chemical studies, and the U.S. National Library of Medicines TOXLINE database to determine what testing has been done.
The authors note that the current regulatory structure for food additive safety in the United States was approved by Congress in 1958 and allows manufacturers to add chemicals deemed "generally recognized as safe" or "GRAS," to food without review by the FDA. Manufacturers sometimes voluntarily report such safety decisions to FDA.
<>
[center][/center]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA" [View all]
alp227
Jan 2015
OP
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is seen as a great reason to not label
djean111
Jan 2015
#1
Obviously not all illnesses are either acute or fatal + chronic diseases are exploding in the US.
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2015
#59
www.FoodDemocracyNow.org:"Dan Quayle & Michael Taylor's Nightmare Lives On - 20 years of GMO Policy"
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2015
#72
If the choices you are advocating are either NO GMO labeling or SOME GMO labeling,
djean111
Jan 2015
#7
Thanks for that, I will wash the fruit more thoroughly. You have been very helpful.
djean111
Jan 2015
#40
"It's had a gene inserted that causes it to produce vitamin A, a common malnutrition problem"
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#13
of course we do. We're one of the reasons some people in other countries don't eat a varied diet.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#29
Did you miss the part about how Golden Rice wasn't developed by any corporation?
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#66
First, I never claimed it was "developed by a corporation". I said "the corporate solution is..."
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#67
So since Bill Gates funds Golden Rice research, he must want to make money off the 3rd world
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#70
out of all that, you pulled out gates? There's a web of interests involved, and not charging
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#71
Believe it or not you can send them a check and your name will be added to the list
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#76
if i send them a very BIG check, sure. but i'm not a 1%er, so i can't. wouldn't want to anyway.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#77
You claimed it was a "corporate solution" which is an assertion you have yet to support
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#79
I already responded to you about the "corporate solution". The technology is donated just
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#80
By faster and cheaper options, i'm referring to the use of fortified oils, fortified sugar, and
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#83
1) I said nothing about how much rice you'd have to eat to get some effect. I noted, however,
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#86
Sure, everyone who disagrees with Greenpeace is a "shill for business interests"
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#94
Not sourcing it was my oversight. my apologies. Lombord is still a political scientist, not an
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#95
'The Black Swan' author Nassim Nicholas Taleb & team prove risks of GMOs are severely underestimated
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2015
#48
Practically no farmer has ever grown any foodstuff for any reason except profit.
goldent
Jan 2015
#10
so what? are you recommending we replace what's left of democracy with the dictat of the
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#53
a lot of those same people don't know much about vitamins and minerals either, but we have food
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#56
As opposed to giving equal weight to informed and uninformed opinion? N.T.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#97
so said those who took the vote from blacks in the south. "They're too stupid and uniformed to
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#98
January 15, 2015: "Tyrone Hayes on crooked science and why we should shun GMOs"
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2015
#42
Oh no, he can't be a scientist. He disagrees with the prevailing "wisdom" and all the "scientists"
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#57
Not if you called it water. But of course, if the intent is to "prove" that most people are stupid,
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#87
i don't know many 8 year olds who know what dihydrogen monoxide is. I'd guess we live in
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#89
what i feel sorry for is people who'd have the public believe that questions of public policy are
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#91
True, but if you want to get into ppb, you can say that about practically everything
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#84
Clumsily phrased but I think folks want to know if their pears are spliced with spiders
TheKentuckian
Jan 2015
#22
I'm sure a roach and a banana have common marker too but it doesn't follow that I want
TheKentuckian
Jan 2015
#102