Absurd laws that protect the interests of the food industry

Today we read in Foodwatch, a German non-profit association that tries to defend the interests and rights of German consumers, a story in which it is denounced that the food law in the European Union more effectively protects food industry interests that the interests of consumers. Food has a high level of security, this is one of the most widely used assertions by politicians and the food industry, although food scandals occasionally appear on the scene showing that the political measures adopted regarding food security do not They are as effective, as for example the scandal of the Italian mozzarella in 2008, the excessive level of dioxins that was detected in the german eggs three years ago the horse meat problems (not that it was dangerous but it was a fraud) in 2013, etc.

The truth is that numerous cases of food scandals can be cited, as well as the use of certain components and additives that have been considered safe and that in the end have been banned after a long process of litigation and investigation. Consumers see helplessly how the food industry and politics, dictate the rules of the game according to their interests and needs, have a series of absurd laws that protect the interests of the food industry, there is no effective legislation capable of enforcing consumer protection.

Foodwatch shows us 10 absurd laws that look after the interests of the food industry, they also tell us about the inconsistent and ineffective measures that are adopted after a food scandal. For example, in the case of dioxin eggs, the German government announced measures such as one sample per 1.000 tons of feed for farmyard animals, which is considered insufficient. In another example cited there is talk of uranium contained in water, there is a tolerance limit for water from the public supply network, but it does not apply to bottled water. If we talk about additives, we can mention the azo dyes or azo dyes used by the food industry, some are under suspicion for being the cause of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), etc.

Next we quote the 10 craziest or absurd laws that threaten food security according to Foodwatch:

Ineffective rules regarding transgenic foods. Farmers and consumers have the freedom of choice both to grow and to feed on GMOs. The minimum distances between the cultivation of traditional and genetically modified foods are not standardized, depending on the country, the safety distance fluctuates between 150 and 500 meters, these regulations did not take into account bees, insects that can fly several kilometers carrying transgenic pollen .

Limitación del contenido de dioxinas en los alimentos. En lo que respecta a contenido de dioxinas, existen límites a fin de proteger a los consumidores, sin embargo, varios alimentos entran en el mercado con niveles de dioxinas superiores. Recordemos que algunos investigadores explicaban que esta sustancia química es muy tóxica y está asociada a diferentes problemas de salud, pudiendo interferir en el work inmunitario, causar problemas en el work reproductivo y provocar cancer.

Food label warnings in small print about azo dyes. On these additives that are suspected of causing health problems like ADHD, the EU took the step of including a warning on food labels that can easily be overlooked.

Recommendations on sugar consumption that come directly from the industry. The EU makes it still possible for food manufacturers to make products with 90 grams of sugar, as the recommended daily intake. Foodwatch explains that this value has not been determined by the European Food Safety Authority or other scientific institutions, but directly by the pressure group of the European food industry. In this regard, it is worth remembering that the WHO recommends halving the amount of sugars that until now was the maximum limit, going from 50 grams to 25 grams of sugar, we talked about it in the post Reducing sugar consumption to improve population health.

Limit of uranium content in water. Although there is a tolerable limit set for tap water, this limitation, according to the German association, does not apply to bottled water. The regulations adopted by the federal government apply to non-bottled drinking water.

Food additives appear on the labels of the packages that are sold in the supermarket, but we do not know anything about them in the restaurants. For Foodwatch a diner from a restaurant He is a second-class consumer, since he does not know what additives his food contains unlike those who go to the supermarket.

Incomplete dioxin tests. Following the dioxin scandal in 2011, the German government announced the termination of feed producers' rights to avoid feeding animals with dioxin feed. All the ingredients that may contain dioxins are not covered in the Community regulation and therefore are not controlled. To this we must add that the sampling carried out is considered insufficient, one sample for every 1.000 tons of product.
As a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, certain animal meals must be identified so that they cannot enter the food chain. Community laws allow the use of a chemical marker whose odorless and colorless properties make it only detectable in a laboratory, making it possible for these flours to enter the alimentary canal.

Healthy information only on request. German authorities are aware of the problem of uranium in water or the risk of acrylamide in food, among other examples, however, they do not inform consumers properly unless expressly requested. The truth is that the Consumer Information Law allows access to this type of information only if the request is made, the problem is that many consumers do not know the law, the most coherent thing would be to release all the information and that it could be consulted by any user without prior request.

Impunity for those who poison. A feed manufacturer that has been denounced for introducing dangerous products into animal feed receives no sanction, instead it is given a period of time to modify the composition and eliminate the ingredient that is dangerous. The result is that one production can be marketed in its entirety, the next one will already be presented with the appropriate modification, when in fact all the feed should be withdrawn from the market.

Through this link you can consult all the information provided by Foodwatch From the complaint made, it cannot be denied that there are errors to be solved and steps to be taken to improve food safety legislation. In fact, EFSA has made many advances in this regard.

 

Source: http://www.gastronomiaycia.com/2014/04/16/leyes-absurdas-que-protegen-los-intereses-de-la-industria-alimentaria/