[0620 statement] "the truth of advertising in the name of science"-this Council's statement on FDA 0618 advertisements

Share596 + 15 Tweet1 EmailShares 602

Link to the full text of the statement (website of the Housewives Union Environmental Protection Foundation)

Http://www.huf.org.tw/essay/content/2468

"the truth of advertising in the name of science"-our statement on FDA 0618 advertisements

2014.06.20

Contributor: Housewives Union Environmental Protection Foundation

The Food and Drug Administration published a half-page advertisement in the United Daily News on June 18 to persuade the Taiwanese people to accept GM food in the name of promoting food safety science. this is tantamount to a blow to the Food Safety and Hygiene Management Law, which only included GM crops into the norm at the beginning of this year.

Throughout the article, it is claimed that GM crops are safe only through the one-sided arguments of three people (scientists, the food industry and the Director of Food and Drug Administration), and there is no specific scientific evidence for and against GM technology. Looking back on the visit to Taiwan in April by senior officials of Monsanto, the leading multinational reform enterprise, and announcing that it would be with the news of the Ministry of Health and Health on the detailed rules for the implementation of Taiwan's "Food Safety and Hygiene Management Law" and the marking of basic changes, compared with this advertisement disguised as new scientific knowledge, the motivation and purpose of the Food and Drug Administration's escort for genetically modified foods is clear.

The Housewives Union Environmental Protection Foundation has long advocated the non-fundamental reform movement in Taiwan, and has also continued to participate in the relevant meetings of the government in formulating regulations on the labelling of genetically modified food. with regard to the advertisement of the Food and Drug Administration in the name of false scientific knowledge, which is out of context, biased and a waste of taxpayers' funds, the following statement is made:

First, call on the Food and Drug Administration to faithfully present scientific evidence and not to one-sidedly mislead the public's understanding of GM crops.

At the beginning of this article, the French professor Gilles-Eric S é Ralini's animal experiment was removed from the journal on the grounds that "the number of animal trials is insufficient" and "the mouse strain used in the experiment is a tumor-prone strain." the inference that "GM foods cause cancer" is alarmist. But what is not said in the article is that Monsanto also uses the same mouse strain to conduct its GM food safety experiments, and refuses to publish the experimental methods and data. if GM food is really so safe, why dare not publish it?

In addition, genetic engineering is to insert specific genes through vectors such as viruses or bacteria, breaking the rule that "different kinds of organisms cannot exchange DNA". It is a completely different concept and technology from traditional breeding to cultivate target crops among the same kind of organisms. This is a basic biology that can be understood by the general public. Genetic engineering and traditional breeding are by no means "no different" as claimed by the FDA.

Second, just because there is no direct evidence of the harm of GM foods to the human body does not mean that we have to eat GM foods.

GM crops have only been grown commercially since 1996, and it is generally believed that it will take a generation (about 30 years) to predict what effects they will have on the human body. this does not mean that GM foods can be declared safe without immediate sexual hazards or deaths after consumption.

Take the hubbub of copper chlorophyll as an example, eating it will not immediately get sick or die, so should we eat it? The Government should stop deceiving the public with this ridiculous logic.

Third, implement the traceability system of the Food and Safety Law, protect the people's right to know, and change the mark not to backtrack.

Ye Minggong, director of the Food and Drug Administration, said that "there are too many GM foods. If every product has to be labeled, it will not only be meaningless but also have cost considerations. In the future, it will be gradually revised to non-GM food before it needs labeling." This Council is very disappointed and puzzled by its speech. As the head of the competent authority in charge of food safety for the public, is this speech advocating that GM foods do not need to be labeled from now on?

In addition, articles 22, 24 and 25 of the Law stipulate that foods, food additives and bulk foods should be clearly marked with genetically modified raw materials, and the protection of people's right to know should be implemented by using the GM food labelling system. Under the supervision of legislative units and non-governmental organizations, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced three drafts, such as "matters to be followed in the labelling of raw materials for packaged food, bulk food and food additives containing genetically modified foods" today (6go 20). However, Director Ye's improper remarks inevitably make people wonder whether he intends to go back on his word and become fat, opening the door for large-scale invasion of Taiwan by genetically modified crops in the future.

Fourth, the government should give priority to protecting the food safety of the people, instead of claiming to be neutral, but setting a preset position, in fact, it is an escort for GM food.

As a government agency to protect the health and safety of the people, it should not only comply with the laws and regulations, but also strictly guard against the future, and actively prevent possible risks in food, rather than claiming to be neutral.

In the past few years since this Council promoted the non-fundamental reform movement in Taiwan, many scholars from various fields such as agriculture, science and technology, humanities and society have participated in the discussion. however, in this publicity article of the Food and Drug Administration, which hijacked public power and wasted taxes and deliberately ignored or concealed the risk information of genetically modified food, experts and scholars and their discussions on the environmental pollution caused by genetically modified crops and the risks of human consumption have completely disappeared, and we reasonably doubt whether they have been maliciously silenced. In order to carry out its one-sided propaganda.

With regard to the safety of GM foods in the international community, there has been endless debate and repeated new evidence. The FDA should actively safeguard the food safety of the people, disclose all relevant information at home and abroad, and establish a transparent process for citizens to participate in policy formulation. Fully communicate with the public through various information channels in order to live up to the trust of public opinion and safeguard the food safety rights and interests of all consumers.

Press contact: Lai Xiaofen, Secretary-General of the Housewives' Union Environmental Protection Foundation, 0937-800597

Chen Ruwei, Secretary of the Housewives' Union Environmental Protection Foundation, 0931-371,696

Share596 + 15 Tweet1 EmailShares 602