GMO Labeling

NY Steps Into Fray of GMO Labeling

No one today can tell if the food they buy is made from genetically modified organisms (GMO), unless they buy organic. Three quarters of processed foods on store shelves in the United States contain GMO-based ingredients.

No scientific consensus exists on the safety of GMOs: Some independent studies claim they are safe, while others have identified a range of hazards, including cancer, infertility, and birth defects. Most genetically modified foods also contain the herbicides they were engineered to resist, the health effects of which are likewise uncertain.

Labeling products that contain GMOs is crucial, advocates say.

“It’s unknown what the health consequences could be; that’s why you label it,” said Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the Consumers Union, at a New York State Assembly committee public hearing on July 30.

The public has shown overwhelming support for GMO labeling in dozens of surveys conducted over more than a decade. In an MSNBC poll in 2011, 96 percent of over 45,000 respondents said that GMOs should be labeled.

The effort to label GMOs has met with resistance on the federal level for more than a decade, aided by over half a billion dollars spent on lobbying by biotechnology giants like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, according to Food & Water Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. The well-documented revolving door between these companies and federal regulators is seen by some as a contributing factor as well.

State-Level Labeling

Frustrated with failed efforts in Washington, supporters of GMO labeling have taken their fight to the states. New York is now moving into the crosshairs, after labeling bills passed in neighboring Connecticut and Maine.

Following more than a decade in limbo at the State Legislature, a New York GMO labeling bill is gaining momentum. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Albany every year since 2001. For the first time in 13 years, the bill, A3525A, has made it to the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee. Jeffrey Dinowitz, the committee chairman, supports the bill and vowed to bring it for a vote when State Assembly reconvenes in early 2014.

If passed, the bill would require all foods in New York state that contain genetically modified ingredients to carry the words “Produced With Genetic Engineering” on the front or back packaging panels.

The most common genetically modified foods are corn, canola, soybeans, and sugar beets. The bill would not affect fresh produce, a vast majority of which is not genetically modified. It also does not apply to animal products like milk, eggs, and meat, even if the animals consumed genetically engineered feed.

Key Connecticut legislators urged New York lawmakers on July 29 to pass a GMO labeling bill. Connecticut’s labeling law, enacted earlier this year, cannot take effect until four other states, including a border state such as New York, with a combined population of 20 million pass a similar legislation. This provision was added because the state wants to be able share the costs of what some see as an inevitable lawsuit by biotechnology corporations.

Support and Opposition

The body of opposition to GMO labeling comprises lobbyists and scientists funded by biotechnology companies, food industry groups, and farmers who depend on genetically engineered seeds and the herbicides they are designed to withstand.

One of the core arguments employed by these groups is that the decision to label GMO products should be left up to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Supporters of GMO labeling point out that the FDA has largely remained on the sidelines. The agency’s stance on GMOs is based on a decision it made in 1999, citing studies conducted by Monsanto in the early 1980s.

Labeling opponents say that if the FDA deemed genetically engineered foods unsafe, it would label them so. However, “the FDA does not label if the product is unsafe or considered to be unhealthful,” noted Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “If something is proven to be unsafe, they take it off the shelves.”

The FDA labels for material facts, Kimbrell said. Ingredients that are present but cannot be identified by taste, smell, and sight have to be listed on the label.

The FDA has never conducted its own tests on GMOs and maintains that labeling is not necessary since they are the same as traditional foods. Kimbrell thinks the agency’s stance is questionable, since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued hundreds of patents to biotechnology companies for their genetically modified products, certifying that they are unique inventions.

“So which is it?” asked Kimbrell. “Nothing new here? Then take away all your patents.”

The opposition contends that GMO labeling would be misleading to consumers.

“We believe that this legislation is deeply flawed because it would impose a mandatory label which suggests that food products derived from biotechnology are potentially unsafe for consumption,” said Louis Finkel, executive director of government affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Such a label would be inherently misleading. There is overwhelming agreement among regulatory and scientific bodies in the U.S. and around the world that these products are, in fact, safe.”

Contrary to Finkel’s statement, no clear scientific agreement has been reached on the issue: Dozens of recent studies have identified tangible health issues with consuming GMOs, while many others have also deemed them safe.

No agreement exists among regulatory bodies as well. GMOs are not labeled in the United States, the largest producer of genetically modified foods in the world. However, 64 other countries, including the entire European Union, Russia, China, and Japan, already label GMOs.

Farmers who grow GMO crops argue that labeling would increase food costs and put their businesses under undue stress. Advocates say the labeling law does not place any restrictions on the cultivation of GMO crops or the sale of GMO seeds and associated herbicides.

“It’s going to increase costs,” said Eric Ooms, a dairy farmer and a member of the New York Farm Bureau, which opposes GMO labeling. “In California, when they were looking at Proposition 37, it was determined that the food costs would go up $400 per family [per year].”

Proposition 37 refers to a GMO labeling bill that failed to pass in California, following a $46 million opposition campaign by biotechnology giants like Monsanto and DuPont.

The study that calculated the $400 per family cost increase was funded by the campaign against GMO labeling. An independent study conducted later by the Emory University School of Law concluded that “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling [would be] required.”

Food and grocery manufacturers have pointed out that mandatory labeling would drive up product cost because new packaging would have to be printed. However, a simple survey of store shelves reveals that product packaging is changed routinely for marketing purposes.

Luther Van Giddings, Ph.D., a GMO labeling opponent, said that from his personal experience, food prices in Europe have increased since the mandatory GMO labeling was introduced.

David Byrne, former commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection in the European Parliament, stated that the implementation of GMO labeling in Europe in 1997 “did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying [double-digit] prediction of some interests.”

The push to label genetically modified foods is not rooted entirely in cost, health, and safety concerns.

“Some people may have ethical or religious concerns about the whole concept of transferring a gene from one life form to another,” noted Laura Haight, senior environmental associate at the New York Public Interest Group.

The right to be informed is a rallying point for all supporters of the bill.

“As consumers in New York, we think it’s critical to have that label for us to choose what we want to eat,” said David Byrnes, founder of Good Boy Organics. “This is a right-to-know issue. This is very simple—we all have the right to know what’s in our food.” Epoch Times

Key points in the GM food debate

Key points in the genetically modified food debate

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to securing a massive free trade agreement between the United States and Europe is a sharp disagreement on genetically modified foods. Much of the corn, soybean, sugar beets and cotton cultivated in the United States today contains plants whose DNA was manipulated in labs to resist disease and drought, ward off insects and boost the food supply. Though common in the U.S., they are largely banned in the 28-nation European Union. Washington wants Europe to ease restrictions on imports of GMO foods, but the EU is skeptical they are safe. Intense emotions on both sides of the divide make it difficult to separate between strongly held belief and science. Here is a look at key points in the debate.

SAFE OR UNSAFE?

Most studies show GM foods are safe for human consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term health effects are unknown. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has generally recognized GM crops as safe and the World Health Organization (WHO) has said no ill health effects have resulted on the international market.

Opponents on both sides of the Atlantic say there has been inadequate testing and regulation. They worry that people who eat GM foods may be more prone to allergies or diseases resistant to antibiotics. But they have been hard pressed to show scientific studies to back up those fears.

GM foods have been a mainstay in the U.S. for more than a decade. Most of the crops are used for animal feed or in common processed foods such as cookies, cereal, potato chips and salad dressing.

Europe largely bans genetically engineered foods and has strict requirements on labeling them. They do allow the import of a number of GM crops such as soy, mostly for animal feed and individual European countries have opted to plant GM crops. Genetically engineered corn is grown in Spain, though it amounts to only a fraction of European farmland.

The American Medical Association favors mandatory, pre-market safety testing, something that has not been required by U.S. regulators. The WHO and the U.N. food agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, say the safety of GM foods must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

CAN GM FOOD HELP COMBAT WORLD HUNGER?

By 2050, the world's population is projected to rise to 9 billion from just over 7 billion currently. Proponents of GM foods say they are safe and can boost harvests even in bad conditions by protecting against pests, weeds and drought. This, they argue, will be essential to meeting the needs of a booming population in decades to come and avoiding starvation.

However Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, an advocacy group, said genetic engineering for insect resistance has provided only a modest increase in yields since the 1990s and drought-resistant strains have only modestly reduced losses from drought.

Moreover, he said conventional crossbreeding or cross-pollinating different varieties for desirable traits, along with improved farming are getting better results boosting yields at a lower cost. In fact, much of the food Americans eat has been genetically modified by those conventional methods over thousands of years, before genetic engineering came into practice.

"Overall, genetic engineering does not get nearly the bang for the buck as conventional breeding" and improved agricultural practices, Gurian-Sherman said. UCS advises caution on GM foods and favors labeling, though it acknowledges the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated.

Andrea Roberto Sonnino, chief of research at the U.N. food agency, said total food production at present is enough to feed the entire global population. The problem is uneven distribution, leaving 870 million suffering from hunger. He said world food production will need to increase by 60 percent to meet the demands of 9 billion by 2050. This must be achieved by increasing yields, he added, because there is little room to expand cultivated land used for agriculture.

GMOs, in some instances, can help if the individual product has been assessed as safe, he said. "It's an opportunity that we cannot just miss."

TO LABEL OR NOT TO LABEL?

Europe requires all GM food to be labeled unless GM ingredients amount to 0.9 percent or less of the total. The U.S. does not mandate labels on the view that GM food is not materially different than non-modified food. Opponents of labeling say it would scare consumers away from safe foods, giving the appearance that there is something wrong with them.

U.S. activists insist consumers should have the right to choose whether to eat GM foods and labeling would offer them that choice, whether the foods are safe or not. They are pushing for labeling at the state and federal level. California voters last year rejected a ballot initiative that would have required GM food labeling. The legislatures of two other U.S. states, Connecticut and Maine, have passed laws to label GM foods and more than 20 states are contemplating labeling.

COULD GM FOOD TORPEDO THE TRADE DEAL?

Absolutely. The U.S is pressing for the restrictions on importing GM food to be eased but there is no sign that the EU's firm opposition is softening. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said recently that Europe will defend its restrictions in the trade negotiations. Some in the U.S. see the European resistance as just another form of protectionism that promotes domestic products over imported ones.

GM foods are not the only seemingly intractable issue standing in the way of a comprehensive free trade agreement. They are part of a broader set of restrictions on both sides related to agriculture and food safety. There are also significant differences on intellectual property and financial regulations, among other thorny issues. AP

French court lifts ban on growing Monsanto GM corn

French court lifts ban on growing Monsanto GM corn

 France's top administrative court on Thursday threw out a government ban on US agro-chemicals giant Monsanto from growing a type of genetically modified corn.

A moratorium on MON810 corn -- one of just two types of genetically altered food crops whose cultivation is approved by the European Union -- has been in place in France since March 2012.

The Council of State court noted in a statement that the moratorium had little legal basis.

It pointed out that EU regulations say such a ban "can only be taken by a member state in case of an emergency or if a situation poses a major risk" to the health of people or animals, or to the environment.

But France's Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll countered that the government "is not in favour of GM, especially MON810 which is a corn that is resistant to herbicides."

He hinted earlier that the government would take other legal actions if the ban were lifted, and later announced that authorities would take a fresh decision on whether or not to get rid of MON810 before farmers next sow seeds from April 2014.

Brussels cleared MON810 in 1998 for 10 years and Monsanto submitted a request in 2007 for it to be extended but the process has been effectively frozen since then.

In the absence of a formal decision on the renewal request, MON810 is still grown on a small scale, notably in Spain and Portugal whose governments have been more welcoming than other member states. AFP

Truth Behind GM Crops

Uncovering the Truth Behind Genetically Modified Crops 


There was a time when farming was romantic–when the clove of a season made the farmer’s mind turn in wonder, excited about the new cycle of crops to come-when days spent tending fields made the hazy weariness of an evening a right. There was a time when farming was honest–when natural alternatives made the use of things like pesticides unnecessary, and seeds were sown with great integrity. But here we are today in this tumultuous technology era where aircrafts navigate themselves, children are raised by video games and our food has itself a rewritten heritage.

With the help of political power, biotech corporations such as Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto have debauched not only the concept of farming but also what comes out of it. We here in the U.S. have been consuming genetically modified (GM) crops, in one form or another, for more than a decade now.

There is great consumer upset surrounding this because there was no way for them to know. The world’s leading producer of GM products, Monsanto, claims there is no difference between conventionally farmed crops and GM crops. As seen on the FAQ section of their website, they mean to address safety concerns by stating it is only logical to assume GM crops are no different than their conventional cousins. How are we to understand the word ‘modified’ then? And if there were no difference, why was Japan in such a tizzy this past May with the Oregon GM wheat field finding? The Japanese people and their government have worked together in earnest to ensure GM crops are not cultivated on their land or sold in their markets.

It could simply be a matter of preference considering their history of all-natural farming methods; however, we should all take note that GM crops could pose serious risks to human health. In the documentary “Seeds of Death,” Dr. Jeffery Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology shared some startling news. Studies performed by government and independent scientists found, in relation to control groups, lab rats fed a diet supplemented with GM crops had exponentially higher death rates. Babies were born sterile. Tumors began to form on reproductive organs. Disruption of endocrine systems began to surface alongside severe allergies.

In addition to these negative health findings, GM crops and their companion pesticides deplete the minerals and microorganisms that should be present in our soil. Without their presence, our produce is actually less nutrient rich. GM crops also upset sensitive ecosystems by their monoculture layouts-acres upon acres of a signal corn, soy or cotton crop, in essentially barren soil, with hardly a bird or bug in sight. Growth patterns such as these do not exist in nature, and if they do, nature destroys them. However, in all the artificiality perhaps there lies a greater goal. Perhaps Monsanto has their sight set on the selfless act of feeding our starving associates of humanity. Well, probably not. Executive Director of Green Peace International Kumi Naidoo explains there is a “false assumption” that world hunger is due to a lull in food supply. According to Naidoo, there is more than enough food to go around, and world hunger has its basis in more relevant “social, economic and environmental issues.” So, it is like futile attempts of ripping crab grass out of your lawn. Many forget the roots grow deep, and in a few days there is double the crabgrass and double the work. Purporting world hunger will be solved through the creation of higher yielding crops is an oversimplification of the more serious problems we are facing.

So, if GM crops are not the solution for world hunger and are potentially dangerous to our health and environment, what is their purpose?

Why not transition to local organic farming? It does not damage the environment and it does not cause a laundry list of diseases. In fact, organic farming methods are just as efficient as GM and conventional methods. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development reported in 2007 that organic and sustainable agriculture had the same and higher yields than GM and conventionally farmed crops. With this revelation, things shift into focus. If all GM products were kicked to the curb and replaced by organic sustainable farming methods, two key things would happen: A lot of suits would not be as rich as they are right now, and people worldwide would see an increase in their health. (Danielle Alvarez, Junior Political Science Major)

GMO Labels

What's a GMO? And Should Washington Food Labels Warn Us About Them?

Good day, class. Today we're going to learn about GMOs. Those three little letters have been in the news a lot lately, and most people don't really know what it means. For example, today in our show prep meeting, I told the guys I was doing a story on GMOs and Ron said:

"What's the 'O' stand for? Genetically Modified...O?"

Organism. Genetically Modified Oganism. It's also called GE, Genetically Engineered.

This November, Washingtonians will vote on I-522 to decide if foods and seeds containing GMOs should be labeled at grocery and home and garden stores.

Trudy Bialic is director of public affairs for PCC Natural Markets. She wants the labeling. "Essentially all GMOs are either tolerating a pesticide or producing their own pesticide and insecticide. It's engineered with properties that make the produce its own insecticide. You are eating a registered pesticide."

GMOs can currently be found in some zucchini and yellow squash and sweet corn, which means they often show up in processed foods that contain corn syrup. But Trudy isn't taking a stand on whether GMOs are good or bad. She simply wants the products labeled.

"I-522 is really about labeling," says Trudy. "It's not about the science. Labeling gives us transparency and it gives us, as shoppers, the ability to decide for ourselves what's appropriate and best for us to buy and feed our families."

But not everyone wants the labels. Dana Beiber is the spokesperson for the No on 522 campaign.

"We already have a labeling system that works perfectly," Dana says. "For folks who want to avoid foods with GE ingredients in them, they can do so by looking for the organic label. So it's not necessary. The other reason it's not necessary to put a warning label on these foods is because we've been eating them for decades and we have overwhelming scientific research that tells us that the foods are safe.

She says farmers will either have to spend money on a new label, that's specific to Washington state, or change the ingredients in their product.

"I think it's consumers who are really gonna end up paying the bill for us," Dana says. "We can expect our grocery bills to go up by hundreds of dollars per year to pay for this unnecessary labeling system."

Trudy says 64 countries and a few other states have already passed GMO labeling laws.

"Two-thirds of Washingtonians support labeling of genetically engineered foods. There are only five corporations that are funding the opposition. Five! They're protecting their profits. Their concern is not the right to know for all Washingtonians. We all should know what's in our food."

We already label products with their fat and sodium content, we list all the ingredients, so what's the harm in alerting consumers to GMOs?

"The fat or the sodium or whether it has eggs or peanuts in it, all that's placed on every label throughout the country. It's also on the back of the product. It's not a warning label on the front of the product. Make no mistake, 522 is a warning label. In fact, the proponents have said they want it to be a skull and crossbones label on the front of a package."