What's Butylated Hydroxyltoluene and Why Is it In Your Food
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:38 amWhat's Butylated Hydroxyltoluene and Why Is it In Your Food Even Though It's Banned in Europe?
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/wha ... 032515&t=4 ]
The EU prohibits many harmful ingredients America allows. But multinational corporations are looking to change that.
By Alison Rose Levy / AlterNet February 25, 2015
A speaker at an event I recently attended asked why U.S. food companies put butylated hydroxyltoluene, a food preservative and endocrine disruptor, in cereal sold stateside, while in Europe the same companies formulate the same product without BHT.
There are three answers to that question:
1.The European Union prohibits numerous harmful ingredients U.S. regulatory agencies allow.
2.Well-informed European citizens have organized and pushed for those regulations.
3.U.S. citizens have not yet pushed for such regulations in sufficient numbers.
The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management where the burden of proof whether something is harmful or not falls on those taking an action, such as corporations that produce a product. Over the last few decades, the U.S. has become lax with this approach while Europe proceeds with a greater amount of caution. But that contrast may not survive efforts by the U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and multinational corporations, which are currently negotiating super trade treaties behind closed doors.
Such treaties are enacted by Congress through what’s known as “fast-track” legislation, meaning that the President negotiates trade agreements and Congress can only approve or disapprove, but cannot amend or filibuster the legislation.
According to sources at the negotiations of these treaties, the provisions in them may well eradicate the EU’s higher standards. Instead of getting the BHT and other questionable additives out of American products, the negotiated language will likely “harmonize barriers to trade,” meaning corporations can put all the bad stuff in European products that they can’t now.
Many Europeans vehemently oppose such trade deals because the mainstream media is extensively covering them. Here in the U.S., however, there’s pretty much a coverage blackout except for MSNBC’sThe Ed Show. [ http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/ ... 7047363608 ]
Despite leaks, side conversations and Wikileaks revelations that have given experts the opportunity to assess the deals, the American media and public don’t seem too concerned about the outcome. But important questions remain. Let’s begin with the obvious: Why are these deals secret? And why should ordinary citizens go along and trust that the secret handshake devised by corporations will serve the greater public good?
To borrow a phrase from the GMO labeling movement, we need to safeguard the public’s right to know. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about secret trade deals or the contents of food, shampoo, building products, industrial emissions, knowledge protects us.
Is Knowledge a Barrier to Trade? [ . . .]
MORE:
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/wha ... 032515&t=4 ]
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/wha ... 032515&t=4 ]
The EU prohibits many harmful ingredients America allows. But multinational corporations are looking to change that.
By Alison Rose Levy / AlterNet February 25, 2015
A speaker at an event I recently attended asked why U.S. food companies put butylated hydroxyltoluene, a food preservative and endocrine disruptor, in cereal sold stateside, while in Europe the same companies formulate the same product without BHT.
There are three answers to that question:
1.The European Union prohibits numerous harmful ingredients U.S. regulatory agencies allow.
2.Well-informed European citizens have organized and pushed for those regulations.
3.U.S. citizens have not yet pushed for such regulations in sufficient numbers.
The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management where the burden of proof whether something is harmful or not falls on those taking an action, such as corporations that produce a product. Over the last few decades, the U.S. has become lax with this approach while Europe proceeds with a greater amount of caution. But that contrast may not survive efforts by the U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and multinational corporations, which are currently negotiating super trade treaties behind closed doors.
Such treaties are enacted by Congress through what’s known as “fast-track” legislation, meaning that the President negotiates trade agreements and Congress can only approve or disapprove, but cannot amend or filibuster the legislation.
According to sources at the negotiations of these treaties, the provisions in them may well eradicate the EU’s higher standards. Instead of getting the BHT and other questionable additives out of American products, the negotiated language will likely “harmonize barriers to trade,” meaning corporations can put all the bad stuff in European products that they can’t now.
Many Europeans vehemently oppose such trade deals because the mainstream media is extensively covering them. Here in the U.S., however, there’s pretty much a coverage blackout except for MSNBC’sThe Ed Show. [ http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/ ... 7047363608 ]
Despite leaks, side conversations and Wikileaks revelations that have given experts the opportunity to assess the deals, the American media and public don’t seem too concerned about the outcome. But important questions remain. Let’s begin with the obvious: Why are these deals secret? And why should ordinary citizens go along and trust that the secret handshake devised by corporations will serve the greater public good?
To borrow a phrase from the GMO labeling movement, we need to safeguard the public’s right to know. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about secret trade deals or the contents of food, shampoo, building products, industrial emissions, knowledge protects us.
Is Knowledge a Barrier to Trade? [ . . .]
MORE:
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/wha ... 032515&t=4 ]