As genetically engineered product manipulators work against what many say is a well-deserved bad name, they continue to push for public acceptance. According to the Waking Times and other publications, the latest push very aggressively leads towards relabeling GMO as “biofortified”.
Biofortification cross-breeds certain food crops to increase needed vitamin and mineral content without genetic engineering. An example would be to increase the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes, moving certain areas of the planet towards better nutrition, including nutrition for areas with soil depletion.
The results of a 2010 study show that the number of respondents who find GMOs dangerous had shot up to 79% in 2016, while just 18% thought GMOs are not dangerous, and 4% said they did not know.
However when asked in the same time frame, only 7% of the average (wo)man on the street stressed that GMO labeling was most important in their consideration of food quality, and only 6% wanted more info about where or how food was grown or processed.
In spite of the lower indication of worry exhibited in the more casual inquiry, the consistent flow of evidence pointing to the biological and ecological harm related to GMO products is causing consumers to increasingly avoid brands that contain GMO. GMO companies have therefore “adopted” the term “biofortified” as a new idea to divert consumers from regarding GMOs as health detractors and into seeing these products as health promoters.
Under the jurisdiction of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Codex Alimentarius is a collection of codes and guidelines that standardize world food trade, safety, and production. The Codex standard allows use of the term “biofortified” for the cross-breeding of vegetables to increase the content of certain vitamins and minerals as a nutrition boost to malnourished populations.
In an apparent effort to exercise control over Codex influence, a primary GMO engineering company is pressuring Codex delegates to broaden the definition of “biofortified” to include foods that are genetically modified. The National Health Federation (NHF), the only natural health advocate delegate at Codex, reports that many of the delegates saw the deception in this attempt. Even so, the topic was tabled for further consideration at the November, 2018 Codex convergence in Berlin under a new chairperson, Dr. Anja Brönstrup, a Policy Officer at the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL).
Dr. Brönstrup did not call upon any of the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) signaling her that they wanted to speak. Only the sponsoring INGO, the International Food Policy Research Institute, was allowed to speak, and then only on the broadened definition of the term “biofortified”. The NHF however was able to submit written comments stating its position against the proposed definition.
At days end Chairwoman Brönstrup suddenly stated, “I am referring this definition back to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling [CCFL],” proclaming that the GMO-inclusive definition would be sent to CCFL for its review and probable approval.
A strong resistance to GMO engineered foods in many European countries spawned a movement which has led to a moratorium in the EU and hostility towards imported genetically modified (GMO) products. The considered healthy alternative to GMOs in the EU is termed “biofortified,” just as “organic” is used in the U.S.
In addition to confusion in Europe, the U.S. population’s consideration of “biofortified” could easily be paired with “organic,” encouraging perception of the broadened term to support health, instead of containing perceived GMO health detractors.
NHF President Scott Tips said: “It is a very sad state of affairs where we have come to the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition all because we have engaged in very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decline in the vitamins and minerals in our foods over the last 50 years. We will not remedy poor nutrition by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition.”
In May of 2019 at a gathering in Ottowa, Canada CCFL delegates will continue to review the conflict of the term “biofortified” being broadened to include GMO products. Opposers of the broadened terminology are encouraged by the fact that the Final Report of the Nutrition Committee meeting, upon which the CCFL must rely, will not include the misleading impression that there is broad support for GMO-inclusive biofortification.
A sharp eye, detailed concentration, and uncommon knowledge is already required for consumers to decode food labels. Deceptive infusion of GMO into biofortified terminology can only further confuse the situation. The conflict now depends on objections from the EU and others to prevent this mis-terminology. However even if GMO companies are unable to broaden biofortification, it is almost certain that they will continue to promote GMOs to consumers in other ways.
For more information on the attempt of the GMO engineering industry to infuse genetically modified organisms into the definition of “biofortification,” see the following sites, from which this information was derived: