Aramis Madrigal
SVER True Blood
248
   |
Posted - 2014.05.14 19:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote:Also any food that I have bought that's imported from the USA has to have the ingredients labeled on a sticker.
A chocolate bar will read standard ingredients.
The sticker with the real ingredients placed on top will list all the genetically modified ingredients by law.
There must be people who aren't even aware as companies obviously don't have to list everything.
Its their right.......right?.
Reese's pieces are rammed with gm crap.
Below is a link to the US code of federal regulations with regard to food labeling. Different countries have different requirements with regard to nomenclature, recommended serving sizes, standards of identity, etc, which is the reason for the sticker. The EU does have a standard for labeling of GMO components and does allow GMO ingredients, particularly glyphosate resistant crop varietals. Regarding Reese's pieces, the hydrogenated vegetable oil, corn syrup, likely the dextrose, soy lecithin and modified cornstarch are from GMO's. The vast majority of corn and soybeans are GMOs, so anything with ingredients derived from these plants will have GMO ingredients. Food companies are required by law to list all ingredients in any food product, although the US lacks a GMO labeling policy. I would argue that inadequate labeling is rather far down the list of problems with the food economy, although I do advocate for full and accurate labeling, including GMOs.
Regarding the state of the EU food system, I applaud the tighter ingredient, GRAS and labeling standards, but it doesn't seem to have done much for the health of the continent. Europe has similar levels of obesity and associated co-morbidities as much of the rest of the developed world.
Cheers,
Aramis
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title21/21cfr101_main_02.tpl |
Aramis Madrigal
SVER True Blood
250
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 20:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
I've read about a few cases such as this. Part of the reasoning is the rather well meaning but short sighted desire to remove the stigma of supplementary nutrition programs that provide free lunch to students meeting certain economic requirements. Regarding the content of school lunches, there are problems to address both on the side of the consumer (i.e. the student) as well as the provider (the school). Many young people are acclimated to calorically dense foods that are highly palatable and will reject healthier options that don't taste as good. Moreover, sourcing and preparing healthier options is expensive and more complicated from a logistics and labor standpoint. The school has an interest in maintaining some level of profitability in their lunch program so that free lunches can be subsidized and students will readily purchase food from vending machines if what is provided is not to their liking. These vending machines are present due to contracts with a number of food companies (contract and usage info is actually readily available by a freedom of information request as well as through the US accounting office). I could yammer on about this for pages and I'm up to answer any food related questions anyone may have.
Cheers,
Aramis
MS Food Science, MBS Neuroscience (the chemical senses), (soon to be) PhD Cognitive Science (food choice and the genesis of food preference)
My research deals with modifying the early childhood environment to influence food preference, food choice and resultant health outcomes. I also have ~10 years of experience working in food industry R&D previous to my current educational posting. |