Crazed rant moved to new thread to not destroy thread that originated
http://www.ifsqn.com...schedule/page-2
Dear magenta_m,
Oh Dear!
If you apply zero tolerance, yes the category is fairly well defined. If otherwise, it's back to quantitative risk assessment.
Rgds / Charles.C
hmmm, I don't get/understand what vulnerability in the system you're seeing. I think their tolerance is at like 90% or 95% certain no GMO (I'd have to check, but I think there's a couple standard experts on here). It's really clear the corn is high risk GMO because that's the main type of corn we've been using for decades, and it's clear salt is low risk, because it has no genes to modify. If a modified gene version of a plant is known to exist, it's gonna spread naturally, It's harder to define high micro risk because there are a bajillion types of micros and nature makes them, not stupid humans.
:off_topic:
Hey, did you know some guys made FAKE DNA that works like REAL DNA and there's FOUR MORE LETTERS?!?!
CRAZED RANT WARNING : I've been holding this back for months, people. Months.
Technology is so COOL! Why can't we move forward on food technology!?! Stop holding us back, hippies! Food safety > non threats drummed up for marketing like organic and natural and non--GMO. In my personal life, I see GMOs are a spoiled rich white people with plenty of safe food problem, and I'd rather have the cancer it might (Ed note: according to science totally won't) give me than die of starvation. But the corporations who want to copyright *life* are pretty CENSORED in the head, so I'm anti all sides, pro feeding the world on this one. But in my professional life, the standard itself is good, and I wish our factory would adopt it so Sales would have something to tell everyone. The standard owners work with you and answer questions, the certifying bodies are open and helpful, and it seems like they respond to issues and clear up misconceptions better than other standards I've come across, and they're nice. Though I can't say I've ever emailed SQF or BRC to clarify where they stood on interpretation in my particular case.
I want fake DNA in me so bad. We should crash the new DNA lab & bring pizza & beer & see if they'll inject the lot of us so we can be a mutant hybrid army of Food Safety Men, able to locate and file documentation and effortlessly determine root cause, all while fighting the evil Hazard triplets Phylis Ical, Mike Ro, and Biron Ogical.
I'm extra not sober right now - FOUR DAY WEEKEND, CENSOREDs! :beer:
Dear magenta_m,
Allergenicity and GMO have analogous risk concept difficulties, although the former is linked to quantifying a direct safety-related hazard/event while (AFAIK) the latter is to a perceived but officially (albeit debated) absent one (??). Various threshold levels have been proposed for both hazards but the problem remains in the validation. The Precautionary Principle provides an ideal ("no risk") safety solution - zero tolerance. But at an unavoidable and significant material cost.
A couple of starters for a little light weekend reading -
http://www.ifsqn.com...ean/#entry69442
http://www.ifsqn.com...ion/#entry66431
Obviously a primary (safety) driver into both topics at the retail level is from labelling aspects.
I suggest that for allergens any agreed "global" official ppm tolerances except in rare cases will not be seen anytime soon. A look at the science involved in some recent Canadian efforts to merely (!) decide whether certain ingredients should be designated allergenic or not illustrates how difficult things can get. Back to subjective terminology issues again. :smile:
For GMO, the efforts being made by the non-GMO project to create a "classification" route/approach/criteria in the USA undoubtedly deserve a :thumbup: . But the threshold logic employed as far I can see is yet again subject to scientific debate / validation.
Rgds / Charles.C
Dear magenta_m,
Allergenicity and GMO have analogous risk concept difficulties, although the former is linked to quantifying a direct safety-related hazard/event while (AFAIK) the latter is to a perceived but officially (albeit debated) absent one (??).
That is an elegant way of putting it. Ahhhh, no risk only materials = zero tolerance. I got it Yes, that's impossible to validate, esp at my point in the supply chain. For allergens, I can feed it to someone with the allergen and wait to see if their throat swells. For GMO....no such test.
I suggest that for allergens any agreed "global" official ppm tolerances except in rare cases will not be seen anytime soon.
I believe allergens affect different populations, at least lactose intolerance, and allergic reaction due to over exposure is probably more prevalent for certain foods in certain areas. Unless that is racist, in which case I don't think that.
Again, this may be incredibly naive of me because I'm not knowledgeable about genes, but if GMO corn is just corn that is more robust, who's to say the corn wouldn't have evolved in that manner anyway, and who is to say the corn you're testing isn't corn that has developed naturally?
Again, this may be incredibly naive of me because I'm not knowledgeable about genes, but if GMO corn is just corn that is more robust, who's to say the corn wouldn't have evolved in that manner anyway, and who is to say the corn you're testing isn't corn that has developed naturally?
All plants and animals evolve. They evolve to survive. When the grapes were dying we chopped off the roots of others and attached it to what we wanted so that they would grow. Isn't that technically a GMO? Adding stuff that wasn't originally there? If we stood in a circle, chopped off our arms and legs, arms going to the right and legs going to the left, we would all be considered GMO's (and most likely dead).
I worked for a couple summers in the cornfield doing pollinations. Adding humans to speed up what nature most likely would've done anyway...Besides that everyone's so concerned with how we're going to feed everyone yet media is telling everyone they should eat organic, natural, gluten-free, gmo-free, etc. We cannot possibly feed the world with organic practices (and most people don't even know what organic means...).
Stepping off my soapbox now...
Things have gotten so muddy as to what it is and companies so tight lipped about what is in what they produce, I can kind of see where the concern might come from.
EDITED to add My understanding of GMOs is rudimentary and possibly incorrect, so I will gracefully concede to any explanation.
Stepping off my soapbox now...
Stepping on mine now......
Besides that everyone's so concerned with how we're going to feed everyone yet media is telling everyone they should eat organic, natural, gluten-free, gmo-free, etc. We cannot possibly feed the world with organic practices (and most people don't even know what organic means...).
While I have not reviewed the numbers, I do believe that you are right.....however that does not mean that the practices we have going are best idea either. Our population is continuing to grow too quickly....and we humans have a propensity to not see the writing on the wall and just be "happy" while the ship sinks, the oceans rise and ignore the science unless it is convenient. We live on a planet with limited resources and is time we start managing our resources properly. I live in the American southwest--a desert. Yet the developers build water communities all over the place and then moan about the drought and want the rest of us to shower once a week and drink sparingly. Because if they don't build water communities people won't buy and the area won't grow..... yada yada yada...... We live in the desert people, if you want water go to the California beach or community with a natural lake.
Catching breath.....
But if you add some wheat genes into corn to add, I don't ability to wave in the wind, how does that affect the people who can't eat gluten? If we don't notify anyone what we've done to this Wavy Corn, and people get sick, etc...
Things have gotten so muddy as to what it is and companies so tight lipped about what is in what they produce, I can kind of see where the concern might come from.
EDITED to add My understanding of GMOs is rudimentary and possibly incorrect, so I will gracefully concede to any explanation.
I read a while back where most of the major plant food products don't have that many cell lines that are able to produce the mass quantities the planet needs. So much of this is still new.... and we need to tread carefully and be clear that we don't damage the food lines we have and don't wind up with corporations owing what few there are and deciding who eats and who doesn't. Sometimes what seems like a good idea isn't. Like Setanta I am not a expert, but she makes very good points as has everyone else on this rant.....
Stepping off soapbox......