|
Post by moabiter on Jun 9, 2010 11:07:22 GMT -8
Globe and Mail December 4, 2003 OTTAWA -- Nearly nine out of 10 Canadians want Ottawa to force companies to disclose whether any food they sell contains genetically modified ingredients, a new poll suggests. The survey results show Ottawa, which has refused to make labelling of genetically engineered foods mandatory, is out of step with Canadians, says the Consumers Association of Canada, which paid Decima Research to conduct the poll. Ottawa has resisted an international trend toward mandatory labelling, preferring to leave it to the industry to try to come up with a voluntary system -- an initiative that's been under way for four years. www.healthcoalition.ca/cac-dec2003.pdf (4pp) _______________________________________ 'Activists' - looks a bit fringey. Activists want GM foods labelled at upcoming Codex meeting May 2, 2010 The United Nations Codex Alimentarius, the commission on food labelling, referred to around the world as 'Codex,' is meeting in Quebec City from May 3 to 7th. The Codex is extensive, with 13 volumes that "govern global food quality and safety standards". The Codex is put together by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, both United Nations bodies. The Codex Commission, which has existed since 1963 has over 170 members, and the main purposes of the Codex Commission are "... protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non governmental organizations."www.digitaljournal.com/article/291475 Like Monsanto pus milk. Monsanto & Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0
|
|
|
Post by moabiter on Jul 8, 2010 6:25:01 GMT -8
Promoting the perfect prawn in Australia: Is This the Perfect Prawn? - June 29, 2010 - have used DNA technology- improved Black Tiger prawn - producing record yields - won five gold medals at the Sydney Royal Easter Show in the past two years, including 'Champion of Show' - program captures the very best Black Tiger prawn stocks that nature can provide - major gain for both the local prawn industry and consumers wanting to buy Australian seafood - Australia's production could increase from 5,000 tonnes to 12,500 tonnes - no reduction in quality or taste www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628092750.htmNo where does it say genetically-modified.
|
|
|
Post by moabiter on Jul 8, 2010 6:47:29 GMT -8
EU bans food made from cloned animals July 7, 2010 Lawmakers regulate the sale of ‘novel foods,’ defined as things not widely consumed in the 27-nation bloc before 1997 [defined as food made with new production processes or that had not been widely consumed in the 27-nation bloc before 1997.] The parliament said it also had concerns over the safety of food products developed using nanotechnology, and demanded a moratorium on their sale until such production techniques have undergone specific safety assessments. If agreed, this could have an impact on products already on sale in the EU containing nanotechnologies. In future, any approved foods containing nano-ingredients should be clearly labelled as such, the lawmakers said. www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/eu-bans-food-made-from-cloned-animals/article1631449/Novel foods. Nano ingredients.
|
|
|
Post by clone on Aug 2, 2010 22:07:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by clone on Jan 30, 2011 22:24:08 GMT -8
A Win for Democracy and Bill C-474 NDP secures extended debate on GE crops in early February By Lucy Sharratt - Jan 29, 2011 For the first time in Canada’s 15-year history with genetically engineered (GE) crops, Parliament is engaged in a real debate over the negative impacts. This debate is thanks to the one-line Private Members Bill C-474 from NDP Agriculture Critic Alex Atamanenko which would require “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” Despite industry attempts to prevent the debate from happening in the first place, and a successful move to shut down Agriculture Committee hearings on the bill, Bill C-474 continues to force more debate in both the House of Commons and the Agriculture Committee. The simple proposal that our government should examine the possible economic impacts of GE seeds before they are introduced has exposed the contradiction of Canadian policy that supports GE while refusing to even look at possible negative impacts. Bill C-474 identifies the core problem that GE crops are being approved in Canada despite predicted negative economic impacts. GE contamination translates into economic costs borne by farmers, especially when GE crops are introduced without also being approved in our major export markets. At the moment, these economic risks to farmers are not considered by government. If Bill C-474 passes, it will likely prevent the planting of crops that we know will cause economic chaos, such as GE alfalfa and GE wheat. The fight over the bill is happening at the exact time the struggle to stop GE alfalfa in Canada and the US is reaching a critical final stage. As Kelvin Einarson, director and secretary treasurer of the Manitoba Forage Seed Association told Agriculture Committee hearings in June, “ Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and incorporated into the Seeds Regulation Act.” Alfalfa growers do not need or want GE alfalfa and have been trying to stop it for at least five years. But in our current regulation, there is no place for the knowledge of farmers. The introduction of Monsanto’s GE herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa would have serious negative impacts on many different types of farmers and farming systems, both conventional and organic. Without Bill C-474, there is no mechanism to even ask the question of what the economic cost of introducing GE alfalfa will be. Because alfalfa is a perennial crop pollinated by bees, GE contamination is inevitable. Alfalfa is used as pasture and high-protein feed for animals like dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs and pigs and is also used to build up nutrients in the soil, making it particularly important for organic farming. If introduced, GE alfalfa would ruin export markets for alfalfa products and threaten the future of the entire organic food and farming system in North America. After the powerful testimony of alfalfa growers against GE alfalfa and in support of Bill C-474, the biotech industry succeeded in pressuring MPs to shut down the Agriculture Committee hearings. In a surprise counter-move late 2010 in the House of Commons, however, the New Democratic Party used an obscure rule to secure an extended debate of an unprecedented five hours, for Feb. 8. Now, every MP will have an opportunity to speak on the bill. “This is a great chance for farmers to be heard. Organic, non-GE and conventional farmers will all now have a fair opportunity to voice their urgent concerns,” said Saskatchewan organic grain farmer Arnold Taylor. But members of the Agriculture Committee will not be in the House that week. Instead the MPs will be on a road trip, touring universities as part of a new pro-biotech study. To escape exposure to criticism in hearings over Bill C-474 and misdirect attention, the Liberals and Conservatives came up with a new study: “That the Standing Committee on Agriculture & Agri-food conduct a study on the status of the Canadian biotechnology sector, in which it travels to the universities across Canada where this technology is primarily being undertaken, and that it recommend, where necessary, legislative, policy and regulatory changes in order to foster an innovative and fertile biotechnology industry in Canada.” From February 7-11, MPs on the Committee will travel to Calgary, Saskatoon, Guelph, Quebec, Charlottetown, and Truro, providing the industry with a public relations platform instead of talking to farmers—and missing the final debate on Bill C-474. Article: www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50243/Lucy Sharratt is the coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. www.cban.ca/A longer version of this article was originally published in Common Ground. "GE alfalfa was actually approved in Canada in 2005, but it must go through one more small, easy step before it can be legally sold as seed. In the US, GE alfalfa is also currently illegal, although this could change as soon as the end of January." www.commonground.ca/iss/234/cg234_billC474.shtml
|
|
|
Post by clone on Jan 30, 2011 22:44:09 GMT -8
Promoting the perfect prawn in Australia: Is This the Perfect Prawn? - June 29, 2010 - have used DNA technology- improved Black Tiger prawn - producing record yields - won five gold medals at the Sydney Royal Easter Show in the past two years, including 'Champion of Show' - program captures the very best Black Tiger prawn stocks that nature can provide - major gain for both the local prawn industry and consumers wanting to buy Australian seafood - Australia's production could increase from 5,000 tonnes to 12,500 tonnes - no reduction in quality or taste www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628092750.htmNo where does it say genetically-modified. See another thread: The perfect panacea World Hunger Meme it's good for Them AND Us WOW! Scientific Advances! thread: Fighting world hunger with a Super Potato?www.pyrelog.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=monsantogmo&action=display&thread=333and methane-busters. Enviropigs -www.pyrelog.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=monsantogmo&action=display&thread=445Or even the shit-food-for-poor-people-thread and the lucrative businesses of inedible "world food aid" that handily (for big farma) makes people sick. Canada, USA, Japan, EU send substandard food aidwww.pyrelog.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=monsantogmo&action=display&thread=376Then there's the Bayer bee story (clothianidin), which coincidentally ran at about the same time Bayer announced that an aspirin a day can help prevent cancer. Culprits identified in worldwide honeybee die-off The pesticide scooped up $262 million in sales in 2009 by farmers, who also use the substance on canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat, according to Grist www.pyrelog.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bees&action=display&thread=370
|
|
|
Post by clone on Feb 17, 2011 21:52:28 GMT -8
A Win for Democracy and Bill C-474 NDP secures extended debate on GE crops in early February By Lucy Sharratt - Jan 29, 2011 For the first time in Canada’s 15-year history with genetically engineered (GE) crops, Parliament is engaged in a real debate over the negative impacts. This debate is thanks to the one-line Private Members Bill C-474 from NDP Agriculture Critic Alex Atamanenko which would require “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” Despite industry attempts to prevent the debate from happening in the first place, and a successful move to shut down Agriculture Committee hearings on the bill, Bill C-474 continues to force more debate in both the House of Commons and the Agriculture Committee. The simple proposal that our government should examine the possible economic impacts of GE seeds before they are introduced has exposed the contradiction of Canadian policy that supports GE while refusing to even look at possible negative impacts. Bill C-474 identifies the core problem that GE crops are being approved in Canada despite predicted negative economic impacts. GE contamination translates into economic costs borne by farmers, especially when GE crops are introduced without also being approved in our major export markets. At the moment, these economic risks to farmers are not considered by government. If Bill C-474 passes, it will likely prevent the planting of crops that we know will cause economic chaos, such as GE alfalfa and GE wheat. The fight over the bill is happening at the exact time the struggle to stop GE alfalfa in Canada and the US is reaching a critical final stage. As Kelvin Einarson, director and secretary treasurer of the Manitoba Forage Seed Association told Agriculture Committee hearings in June, “ Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and incorporated into the Seeds Regulation Act.” Alfalfa growers do not need or want GE alfalfa and have been trying to stop it for at least five years. But in our current regulation, there is no place for the knowledge of farmers. The introduction of Monsanto’s GE herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa would have serious negative impacts on many different types of farmers and farming systems, both conventional and organic. Without Bill C-474, there is no mechanism to even ask the question of what the economic cost of introducing GE alfalfa will be. Because alfalfa is a perennial crop pollinated by bees, GE contamination is inevitable. Alfalfa is used as pasture and high-protein feed for animals like dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs and pigs and is also used to build up nutrients in the soil, making it particularly important for organic farming. If introduced, GE alfalfa would ruin export markets for alfalfa products and threaten the future of the entire organic food and farming system in North America. After the powerful testimony of alfalfa growers against GE alfalfa and in support of Bill C-474, the biotech industry succeeded in pressuring MPs to shut down the Agriculture Committee hearings. In a surprise counter-move late 2010 in the House of Commons, however, the New Democratic Party used an obscure rule to secure an extended debate of an unprecedented five hours, for Feb. 8. Now, every MP will have an opportunity to speak on the bill. “This is a great chance for farmers to be heard. Organic, non-GE and conventional farmers will all now have a fair opportunity to voice their urgent concerns,” said Saskatchewan organic grain farmer Arnold Taylor. But members of the Agriculture Committee will not be in the House that week. Instead the MPs will be on a road trip, touring universities as part of a new pro-biotech study. To escape exposure to criticism in hearings over Bill C-474 and misdirect attention, the Liberals and Conservatives came up with a new study: “That the Standing Committee on Agriculture & Agri-food conduct a study on the status of the Canadian biotechnology sector, in which it travels to the universities across Canada where this technology is primarily being undertaken, and that it recommend, where necessary, legislative, policy and regulatory changes in order to foster an innovative and fertile biotechnology industry in Canada.” From February 7-11, MPs on the Committee will travel to Calgary, Saskatoon, Guelph, Quebec, Charlottetown, and Truro, providing the industry with a public relations platform instead of talking to farmers—and missing the final debate on Bill C-474. Article: www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50243/Lucy Sharratt is the coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. www.cban.ca/A longer version of this article was originally published in Common Ground. "GE alfalfa was actually approved in Canada in 2005, but it must go through one more small, easy step before it can be legally sold as seed. In the US, GE alfalfa is also currently illegal, although this could change as soon as the end of January." www.commonground.ca/iss/234/cg234_billC474.shtmlHow'd They Vote? Bill: C-474 (Seeds Regulations Act) 2011-02-09 19:00. Yeas:97, Nays:176, Paired:8, Absent:23. Bill: C-474 40th Parliament, 3rd Session Tabled by: Alex Atamanenko, New Democratic Party of Canada Tabled on: 2010-03-03 Topic: Seeds Regulations Act Description: An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm) (Seeds Regulations Act) Status: Negatived on 2011-02-09 More Info: Library of Parliament howdtheyvote.ca/bill.php?id=2143
|
|
|
Post by moabiter on Feb 18, 2011 11:08:40 GMT -8
How'd They Vote? Bill: C-474 (Seeds Regulations Act) 2011-02-09 19:00. Yeas:97, Nays:176, Paired:8, Absent:23. "Science" sides with genetically modified crops February 16, 2011 Members of Parliament did a great service for Canadian farmers ... With 48 per cent of certain commodity crops grown in Canada being genetically modified ... First, it must be made clear as mudly that genetically modified crops are as safe as, or safer than, KLEERLY any other type of food production. Decades of research have demonstrated the safety and sustainability of genetically modified crop technology. blep blep blep... 8-)The world is adopting GM crop technology. As of 2009, more than 130 million hectares of GM crops are grown globally, with an annual increase of greater than 10 per cent. The {bought and paid for} science is now clearly siding with development of GM crops. ... The U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a 2010 report on GM crops and sustainable agriculture. It contains documentation of the first 15 years of GM crop contribution to sustainable agriculture. Clearly as mudly, the goals of the European-style Bill C-474 were not to protect Canadian farmers, but to advance a particular antiGM ideology. RobeRt WageR has been a faculty membeR in the biology depaRtment at VancouVeR island uniVeRsity in nanaimo, b.c., foR 16 yeaRs. he has been inVolVed in gmo ReseaRch foR moRe than a decade. www.calgaryherald.com/life/Science+sides+with+genetically+modified+crops/4292215/story.html
|
|
|
Post by clone on Mar 1, 2011 14:10:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by moabiter on Mar 1, 2011 21:51:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by clone on May 23, 2011 21:53:29 GMT -8
Animals don't like GM food.Doctors and Animals Alike Tell Us: Avoid Genetically Modified Food No one knows why the animals refuse GMOs, but according to a 2009 statement by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), when lab animals do eat GM feed, it’s not pretty. “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” says the AAEM policy paper, which specifically cited infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, among the impacts of eating GMOs. “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” they wrote. “There is causation…” Although we humans don’t have a natural sense to stay away from GM foods, AAEM’s position indicates that we should take a lesson from the animals. This renowned medical organization, which first recognized such dangers as food allergies, chemical sensitivity, and Gulf War Syndrome, called on all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients.¹ They also called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling. Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” Renowned biologist Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava and many others believe that GMOs may be a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America since GM foods were introduced in 1996. GMOs on your plateThere are eight GM food crops: soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and a little bit of zucchini and yellow squash. The two primary reasons why plants are engineered are to allow them to either drink poison, or produce poison. Poison drinkers are called herbicide tolerant. Their DNA is outfitted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of toxic herbicide. The first five crops on the list above have herbicide tolerant varieties. The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis produce an insect-killing pesticide called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. That is found in corn and cotton. The papaya and squashes have virus genes inserted, to fight off a plant virus. All GM crops are linked to dangerous side effects. hippocratesinst.org/avoid-genetically-modified-food
|
|
|
Post by clone on Jul 5, 2011 23:03:36 GMT -8
U.S. Ends Opposition to GM labeling Guidelines Tuesday, 05 July 2011 12:44 Consumer rights victory as US ends opposition to GM labeling guidelines Consumers International, Press release, 5 July 2011 *Twenty year struggle within global food safety body ends with 'consumer rights milestone' *Move clears way for greater monitoring of the effects of GM organisms Consumers International (CI) and its member organisations celebrated victory today as regulators from more than 100 countries agreed on long overdue guidance on the labelling of genetically modified (GM) food. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13304-us-ends-opposition-to-gm-labeling-guidelines
|
|
|
Post by clone on May 8, 2012 15:08:15 GMT -8
Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/eight-ways-monsanto-fails.htmlMonsanto Company is the dominant player in commercial genetically engineered (GE) crops, the biggest seed company in the world, and—to hear them tell it—a leader and innovator in sustainable agriculture. Monsanto aggressively touts its technology as vital to achieving laudable goals such as ensuring adequate food production, responding to the challenge of global warming, and reducing agriculture's negative impacts on the environment. The reality is not so flattering. In fact, Monsanto has held back the development of sustainable agriculture, and continues to do so, in several ways: #1: Promoting Pesticide Resistancewww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/promoting-resistant-pests.htmlMonsanto's RoundupReady and Bt technologies lead to resistant weeds and insects that can make farming harder and reduce sustainability. #2: Increasing Herbicide Usewww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/increasing-herbicide-use.htmlRoundup resistance has led to greater use of herbicides, with troubling implications for biodiversity, sustainability, and human health. #3: Spreading Gene Contaminationwww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.htmlEngineered genes have a bad habit of turning up in non-GE crops. And when this happens, sustainable farmers—and their customers—pay a high price. #4: Expanding Monoculturewww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/expanding-monoculture.htmlMonsanto's emphasis on limited varieties of a few commodity crops contributes to reduced biodiversity and, as a consequence, to increased pesticide use and fertilizer pollution. #5: Marginalizing Alternativeswww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/marginalizing-alternatives.htmlMonsanto's single-minded emphasis on GE fixes for farming challenges may come at the expense of cheaper, more effective solutions. #6: Lobbying and Advertisingwww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.htmlMonsanto outspends all other agribusinesses on efforts to persuade Congress and the public to maintain the industrial agriculture status quo. #7: Suppressing Researchwww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/suppressing-research.htmlBy creating obstacles to independent research on its products, Monsanto makes it harder for farmers and policy makers to make informed decisions that can lead to more sustainable agriculture. #8: Falling Short on Feeding the Worldwww.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/falling-short-on-feeding.htmlMonsanto contributes little to helping the world feed itself, and has failed to endorse science-backed solutions that don't give its products a central role.
|
|
labels on juices pls
Guest
|
Post by labels on juices pls on May 25, 2012 13:40:50 GMT -8
it's fruit blossom hell Apples that never go brown could be on sale by 2014 - with GM fruit staying white for weeks even if sliced up Gene that causes fruit to go brown is 'silenced' Two varieties will stay fresh for weeks at a time Even if white flesh is exposed, will not turn brown PUBLISHED: 12:58 GMT, 24 May 2012 | UPDATED: 13:08 GMT, 24 May 2012 Hi-tech apples: A Canadian biotech company has filed a request with food regulators to start selling two varieties it claims will stay fresh for weeks on endApples that never go brown could be on sale as early as 2014. A Canadian biotech company has filed a request with food regulators to start selling two varieties it claims will stay fresh for weeks on end. Okanagan Specialty Fruits said the genetically modified apples have had the gene responsible for browning ‘silenced’, meaning they remain green or red indefinitely. The firm hopes that it will get approval in the U.S. and Canada within a year and will start planting trees - with the fruit being sold the year afterwards. more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149328/Apples-brown-sale-2014--GM-fruit-staying-white-weeks.html
|
|
|
Post by the orchards on May 25, 2012 14:06:22 GMT -8
Apples that never go brown could be on sale by 2014 - with GM fruit staying white for weeks even if sliced up BackgroundThe genetically modified (GM) “non-browning” apple is engineered to keep from going brown after being cut. This apple is designed for fast food companies and other companies that use pre-cut apples. The technology was developed in Australia and was licensed by small BC company Okanagan Specialty Fruits. Okanagan Specialty Fruits asked for approval in the US in March 2010 and has just asked for approval in Canada. The GM apple has not yet been approved anywhere in the world. BC apple growers stopped the GM apple from being field tested in Canada in 2001. The federal agricultural research station in Summerland in the Okanagan valley, an important fruit growing area, was preparing to start field trials but BC growers who were concerned about contamination stopped them from happening. Many apple grower associations in Canada and the US oppose the GM apple, including the BC Fruit Tree Association. This action alert was issued on May 18 2012 by Bee SAFE, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, GE Free BC, Okanagan Greens Society, True Food Foundation and Vigilance OGM. www.localssupportinglocals.ca/news/stop-gm-apple-take-action-june-3Stop the GM Apple! Take Action before June 3. A small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits has just submitted a request to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for approval of a genetically modified (GM, also called genetically engineered) “non-browning” apple. Contamination from GM apples threatens the future of our apples, and the farmers who grow them. 1. Send your comments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency before June 3, 2012 at active.inspection.gc.ca/eng/plaveg/bio/subs/biocome.aspTell the government that you don’t want to eat a GM apple! - Consumers don’t want GM apples. - The GM "non-browning" apple will mislead consumers by presenting an apple that looks freshly cut or unbruised when it is not. - BC apple growers have already rejected the GM apple. - Contamination from GM apple trees is a risk to Canadian apple producers. - The CFIA and Health Canada should not be wasting public funds reviewing a GM apple that no one wants. - The government should consult with farmers and consumers before approving any new GM crop. 2. You can also sign a petition created by the British Columbia NDP here: spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEVua2pOc0ZjWjZNeVFhd1FRMmNwVGc6MQ3. For more information and to get more involved see www.cban.ca/apple________________ Behind scenes, Health Canada experts clashed with minister's views on food labels - May 1, 2012 OTTAWA — Health Canada's top nutrition experts are at odds over their minister's laissez-faire approach to company-sponsored nutrition labels on the front of food packages, internal records suggest. www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Behind+scenes+Health+Canada+experts+clashed+with+minister+views+food/6548744/story.htmlDeal reached on labels for genetically modified food - Wednesday Jul. 6, 2011 8:53 PM ET The new Codex agreement means that any country that wants to bring in new food labels that would identify genetically modified ingredients will no longer risk running afoul of international free trade laws or facing a legal fight in front of the World Trade Organization. ... In Canada, about 70 per cent of food sold includes genetically modified ingredients from such common crops as corn, soy, and canola. While many other countries now have mandatory GM labelling rules in place, Canada does not. www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110706/genetically-modified-food-gmo-labels-110706/
|
|