A note on the Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.
Mulling an email subscription from Agnet delivered from Canada, I stopped a few moments in a report from the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology about the USDA’s Biotechnology Regulatory Services negotiating position on low-level (adventitious) presence of unapproved transgenic material in food. These strings captured my attention:
In a draft position statement distributed at the meeting, the U.S. delegation supported language clarifying that the guideline addresses food safety and nutritional issues only, excluding animal welfare; ethical, moral and socio-economical aspects; risks related to the environmental release of transgenic animals used in food production; and the safety of transgenic animals used as feed, or the safety of animals fed with feed derived from transgenic animals, plants or microorganisms.
How can we have food safety while excluding animal welfare?
[USA seeks to include] food safety and nutritional issues only, excluding animal welfare
How can we remain proud negotiators with language such as this?
[USA seeks to exclude] ethical, moral and socio-economical aspects…
Why would we seek to repress dialogue and law on this issue?
[USA seeks to exclude] release of transgenic animals used in food production…
This string hit me between the eyes!
[USA seeks to exclude] the safety of transgenic animals used as feed…
What are “transgenic animals used as feed?
Why would the USA seek to exclude such animals from regulation?