Con-venient Cloning Loophole In EU Law *
Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara
The following extract from a pro-EU newspaper on European affairs has revealed a lucrative and dangerous loophole in EU law that allows meat and other produce from cloned animal’s offspring to be sold to the public without notifying governments or putting labels on the products for the public.
By HONOR MAHONY
Milk from cloned cow offspring exposes gap in EU food law
Claims that a British farmer has been selling milk from a cloned animal has exposed a loophole in an EU law dealing with putting new foods on the market.
The matter is currently being investigated by the country’s Food Standards Agency.
However, even if the report is verified, the farmer in question has not broken EU rules.
Produce from the offspring of cloned animals is not covered by the rules.
“Meat and milk from the offspring of cloned animals is not currently covered by the Novel Foods regulation. Therefore, there is no need to notify it,” a European Commission spokesperson said Tuesday (3 August).
The legal situation means that the authorities have no way of knowing how much, if any, produce from the offspring of cloned animals is being sold in the EU.
the European public is generally opposed to having food from cloned animals on the dinner table - a similar wariness can be found when it comes to genetically modified foods.
The article below from 2009 shows that the cloning industry and their lobbyists have the EU chiefs in their favour. Slowly but surely the public will get more cloned and GM produce than they are already dinning on today, well, what’s be revealed to them that they are dinning on.
By Rory Harrington
New EU regulation on authorising food from cloned animals sparks heated debate
EU chiefs have been criticised for approving a draft regulation on food from cloned animals that could “keep options open” for its eventual authorisation in the region, claimed opponents.
The censure came after Agriculture ministers agreed the draft rule to include food from cloned animals in proposed legislation on novel foods. UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas labelled the move as a “a potential stepping stone towards legislation to authorise such products” and said the approval “flies in the face of consumer concerns and a European Parliament vote in favour of an outright ban”.
The parliament has already passed a motion in favour of an all out ban on food from cloned animals.
Some have seen yesterday’s draft proposals as an attempt by the Council to find a compromise between the Commission, which is in favour of authorising food from cloned animals
Keep in mind that the elected European Parliament have no powers to make laws. When they vote to ban something it’s meaningless. The power of the EU is held with the unelected at the European level, the EU council, the ministers and the three thousand plus private working groups.
Whether the public like it or not it has been mandated they will eat cloned food knowingly or not. In 2008 the Canadian Gazette newspaper published the following article:
Are we already dining on clones?
Canadians may have been consuming food from clones for years without knowing it, despite a Health Canada ban.
That’s one of the surprising revelations from documents on cloning from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency obtained under the access-to-information legislation.
Donald Coover, a Kansas veterinarian who says he has sold clones and their semen to farmers in the U.S. for years, said hundreds of embryonic-cell nuclear-transfer clones were produced in the U.S. and that their meat and milk quietly entered the U.S. food supply without any official safety review.
And now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has okayed clone food for human consumption, the CFIA again seems to have no plan for keeping it out of the country, according to an internal email sent by a manager at the agency.
Big money hand-picked scientific data from the cloning industry saying it’s product is of course safe will outnumber independent studies that show dangers. I’m sure there are no scientists working for the GM industry speaking out against their company’s products. Human DNA is also being spliced with food for drug purposes (cannibalicious), as reported by numerous news agencies in 2007.
By Sean Poulter
The rice with human genes
The rice’s producers, California-based Ventria Bioscience, have been given preliminary approval to grow it on more than 3,000 acres in Kansas. The company plans to harvest the proteins and use them in drinks, desserts, yoghurts and muesli bars.
In the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists, a policy advocacy group, warned: “It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors.
“There would be little control over the doses people might get exposed to, and some might be allergic to the proteins.”
The concerned scientists were correct. Bayer has just been sued successfully five times by farmers in the United States. Louisiana State University was doing trials growing genetically modified Bayer rice. The GM rice spread and infected normal rice in a number of other states. The following extract is from Bloomberg:
Bloomberg Business Week
Bayer Loses Fifth Straight Trial Over U.S Rice Crops
July 14 (Bloomberg) — Bayer AG lost its fifth straight trial over contaminated U.S. long-grain rice to a Louisiana farmer
The Louisiana grower, Danny Deshotels, and his family claimed the company and its Bayer CropScience unit were negligent in testing their genetically modified LibertyLink seed, causing a dive in exports to Europe.
“Five different juries under the laws of four different states in both federal and state courts now have unanimously found that Bayer was negligent and liable to rice farmers for damages,” Don Downing, Deshotels’ lawyer said after the trial. “Not a single juror in any of the five trials found for Bayer.”
In August 2006, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced that the modified seed had been found in commercially grown long-grain rice in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Missouri.
Now cloned animals have wrongly but legally spread in the public’s diet by their offspring. The concerned scientists have also shown wisdom by stating that genetic tampering of the public’s diet can increase allergic reactions. The Daily Mail (16.04.2009) published the following on food allergies: “Allergy UK believes 40 per cent of adults now have allergies - up from 15 per cent in the 1990s.” What has changed since the 1990s?