Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Anti-GMO Legislation Withdrawn; New Versions Forthcoming

HAWAII

Anti-GMO Legislation Withdrawn; New Versions Forthcoming


It was a full house for a County Council committee meeting today despite the fact that no further testimony was being taken on the measure under consideration. Photo by Dave Smith.

After four days of passionate public testimony and extensive internal deliberations, a Hawaii County Council bill that would have placed restrictions on genetically modified crops on the Big Island has been withdrawn.Councilwoman Margaret Wille, who had introduced Bill 79 in April, today made the motion to kill the bill during today’s meeting of the Committee on Public Safety and Mass Transit.
The measure would have placed banned new genetically modified crops on the Big Island and placed restrictions on the growing of an existing one, papayas engineered to resist the ringspot virus. 
Wille had already made substantial amendments to the bill and had indicated in recent weeks that more changes were to come.
Councilwoman Brenda Ford told her colleagues today that she also intends to introduce legislation dealing with genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
Hundreds of people have testified on Bill 79 over four days of meetings that concluded on July 3 in Kona.

While most of those testifying were in favor of the measure, there were also many who said the legislation would have a chilling effect on Big Island agriculture.
Although the testimony period was cut off after the July 3 meeting, the matter attracted an overflow crowd to the council’s Hilo chambers today in anticipation of a vote that would have sent the bill to the full council with either a favorable or negative recommendation.

The matter was previously scheduled for July 30 but was postponed until today out of concerns about the impact of a then-approaching Tropical Storm Flossie.BIGISLANDNOW

OPINION: LET THE CONSUMER MARKET DECIDE ON GMO LABELING

OPINION

Let the Consumer Market Decide on GMO Labeling


By Loren Israelsen



It’s the most contentious issue for industry since the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 or the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). More than USD $50 million has already been spent defending it and decrying it—with much more to come.
Yet, most consumers don’t even know what it is. The fight over the mandatory labeling of foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will only escalate leading up to November, when voters in the state of Washington will determine the fate of a closely watched GMO-labeling bill, known as Initiative 522. This follows the narrow defeat of a similar bill in California last year. Agriculture is Washington state’s largest employer, and wheat, itself a GMO candidate, is the state’s number two export crop, ahead of the goods and services provided by Microsoft, which ranks third.
At issue isn’t so much whether GMO ingredients are or are not in food and supplement products, but whether consumers should have the right to know of their existence on labels. Supporters of labeling in the Washington initiative noted foods identified as produced without genetic engineering, including conventional foods, are the fastest growing label claim.
According to new research from the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI), consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the term "GMO," but still have little knowledge about GMOs, with only 6 percent reporting that they are “most knowledgeable." Currently, only 15 percent of shoppers look for GMO-content information on labels.
GMOs were in more than 88 percent of conventionally grown corn and close to 94 percent of commercially grown soy, based on 2011 data, in addition to its presence in other crops, such as canola, sugar beet and cotton. While GMO ingredients are prohibited in organic foods, no such regulations exist covering ingredients used in dietary supplements—unless they are certified organic or certified GMO-free.
At press time, an additional 25 states are considering labeling laws. in April, a national labeling bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate; earlier in July, a California judge created a six-month stay of action in the Elizabeth Cox vs. Gruma Corp. class action lawsuit over “natural" claims in Mission-brand snack chips containing GMO corn. The judge said, “deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority is the appropriate course." Observers said this isn’t likely at any time in the near future because the agency doesn’t consider GMO-based food to be different from non-GMO food, nor does the agency recognize any health or safety issues.
The United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) and its membership are supportive of the labeling for foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing GMO ingredients and of the retailer-initiated Non-GMO Project. A UNPA symposium held in May in Salt Lake City created a forum for company executives and representatives from both sides to discuss the labeling issue and, more importantly, the sourcing of non-GMO ingredients in a post-label world—especially for dietary supplements.NP

Anti-GMO group challenges county clerk's ruling

USA


Anti-GMO group challenges county clerk's ruling


By LACEY JARRELL

EUGENE, Ore. -- An organization seeking to ban genetically modified crops is challenging Lane County officials' rejection of its initiative.

Support Local Food Rights filed the challenge on July 25 in Lane County Circuit Court in response to the county clerk's rejection of its initiative.

The initiative was rejected for failing to meet the requirement that an initiative can address only one issue or subject.

As an initial step in the circuit court review, Ann Kneeland, attorney and spokesperson for SLFR, is preparing a brief, due Aug. 9, that will explain how the initiative does comply with the single subject rule.

The county clerk will also file a brief before oral arguments are heard before Judge Karsten H. Rasmussen.

"Our position is that the ordinance in its entirety addresses the single subject," Kneeland said.

According to Kneeland, the ordinance's single subject is to "create and protect a local food system" in Lane County. Kneeland said each of the ordinance's provisions works toward meeting that goal, including stripping corporations that violate the ordinance of "legal rights, privileges, powers and protections" and forbidding corporate claims to "future lost profits" to be considered as property interests.

"Unless we take rights away from corporations that violate the ordinance, we couldn't be successful in protecting what we care about, including our local food system," Kneeland said.

In a letter sent to Kneeland and chief petitioner Lynn Bowers, County Clerk Cheryl Betschart identified four subjects that violated the single-subject rule: the creation of rights of natural communities; the creation of rights to self-government and sovereign citizenship; the elimination or curtailment of corporate rights; and limited immunity to federal patent law.

While SLFR is waiting for court proceedings to move forward, the group plans to increase community engagement by hosting events and speakers, fundraising and rallying supporters around the issue, Bowers said.

"We're to the point where we are ready to fill executive positions in terms of running a campaign," she said.

Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, said farmers, foresters and other members of OFS would be negatively impacted if the initiative passes. He pointed out that pesticides, fertilizers, and biotechnology are used by industries ranging from nurseries to golf courses.

"Many farmers use this technology right now and see this initiative as a threat," Dahlman said. Capital Press

FRANCE: GM MAIZE

FRANCE

French court overturns ban on Monsanto GMO maize


France's highest administrative court rejected on Thursday a government ban on growing Monsanto's MON810 genetically modified maize (corn).
In its ruling, the Conseil d'Etat said under European Union law such a measure could only be imposed in an emergency or if there was a serious health or environmental risk.
This marks the second time in two years that the State Council has overturned a government ban on growing MON810. France, which is the EU's largest grain producer and a vocal opponent of GMO crops, has argued the technology poses environmental risks.
The ruling was expected after a preliminary hearing earlier this month found there was no scientific justification for the ban. The government has said it remains opposed to the cultivation of Monsanto's GMO maize. REUTERS

PHILIPPINE: GE GOLDEN RICE PLANTING SOON

PHILIPPINE

Engineered Golden Rice May Be Planted Soon In Philippines

The genetically engineered rice has had a long journey to from lab to bowl


Nearly 15 years after its invention, farmers in the Philippines could start growing golden rice within a year, the BBC reports.
But much depends on what national regulators will say after Filipino scientists submit their rice samples for approval in a few weeks. Golden rice, which is genetically modified to produce vitamin A, has had a tortuous journey from lab to field. Soon after its invention, media reports billed it as a savior for kids in developing countries suffering from vitamin A deficiency, the number-one cause of preventable blindness in children worldwide. At the same time, however, genetic engineering opponents such as Greenpeace launched campaigns against the technology. Consistent opposition against genetically modified crops has delayed every step of golden rice's development, as Science magazine reported in 2008. Golden rice continues to see opposition in the Philippines.
Opponents worry that the rice will cross-pollinate with non-modified plants, which they say has unknown consequences. (The BBC report cites worries that the modified rice will threaten "the nation's food security," but it's unclear if that means cross-pollination may cause non-modified rice to die or what.)
Opponents also say there are better ways of relieving vitamin A deficiency, such as encouraging farmers to grow and eat other vegetables.
The Philippine government's campaigns to fortify flour, instant noodles and other staples have already dramatically reduced vitamin A deficiency in the country. Field Tests: Antonio Alfonso, project leader for the Philippine Rice Research Institute, harvests some golden rice. Photo taken in 2011. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Philippine governmental authorities will evaluate the rice's "food safety, feed safety, environmental safety, safety to humans, safety to animals, all these are considered," Antonio Alfonso, the lead scientist for the Philippine Rice Research Institute, told the BBC.
The Philippine Rice Research Institute is a branch of the International Rice Research Institute, which studies golden rice. The government has no official position on the high-tech grain, the BBC reports. BBC

China approves first Argentine GMO corn cargo

ARGENTINA

China approves first Argentine GMO corn cargo

China has approved its first shipment of genetically modified Argentine corn, Buenos Aires-based trade sources said, signaling that the Asian country may eventually import GMO crops from other producers like the United States.
The sources said Chinese health authorities cleared 60,000-tonnes of genetically modified (GMO) Argentine corn. The cargo was already headed inland to be used as hog and chicken feed.
Benchmark Chicago corn futures fell briefly after the market learned about the shipment. Argentina competes for market share with the United States, the No. 1 world corn exporter. But CBOT corn futures, which were already depressed due to good US crop weather, ended the session mixed.
US farmers could eventually benefit from China finally opening the door to GMO corn imports.
Demand for corn-fed pork and poultry has boomed in China as a growing middle class can afford a higher-protein diet.
The Argentine corn was imported by China's state-owned trading house COFCO and left Argentina about a month ago, said three Buenos Aires-based grains trading sources with knowledge of the situation.
The market knew since May that Argentine corn was headed to China. But questions lingered as to whether it would be approved for entry by the AQSIQ, China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.
"The cargo has now been approved by the AQSIQ and the vessel has been discharged in China. The corn is officially imported and on its way to end customers," said a source at a major trading company in Buenos Aires, asking not to be named.
Chicago corn prices have fallen sharply from record highs last summer, and many analysts and traders expected prices to fall further on prospects for a US bumper crop this season.
In contrast to last year, the world is expected to be awash with corn for the foreseeable future, keeping prices in check. Argentina's 2012/13 crop is nearly all harvested.
China is seen by corn futures traders as a wild card in their attempt to pencil in specific price projections.
Most Argentine corn is genetically modified. A small amount was allowed into China late last year as a test case under a China-Argentina GMO deal signed in February 2012.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified. The Buenos Aires Herald







Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton In Ghana

GHANA

Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton In Ghana


The Hidden Agenda Exposed

After several years of apparent short term success in Burkina Faso of Bt cotton in increasing yields, and improving profits of small scale cotton farmers, authorities in Ghana have decided to go down the same road. Ghana’s National Biosafety Committee (NBC) has just approved field tests of GE rice in the Ashanti Region, and GE cotton field tests at 6 different locations in the Northern Region. Bt is bacillus thuringiensis, a pesticide used to control bollworms in cotton, and stem borers in rice.

Why is Ghana looking only to the short term gains of Burkina? Why not also look at the much longer term experience of Bt cotton in India, China, the USA, and Indonesia? In all of these countries, there is evidence of huge problems arising from Bt crops after the first few years. There is an alarming record of growing dependency on agribusiness corporations, reduced profits, increasing debt of small scale farmers, and major environmental safety hazards. Is Ghana naively following bad advice from agribusiness corporations and their NGO and diplomatic agents?

Currently, West Africa has the enviable record of producing some of the best cotton in the world with the least use of pesticides and without genetic engineering. Introducing Bt cotton will put this at risk. Cotton and rice farmers in Ghana can easily recount the constraints limiting their production and profits. But none of these priority problems can be solved by introducing highly controversial GE hybrid seeds.

Potential demand by farmers is not driving this recent action by the Biosafety Committee. There is another, quite hidden, agenda pushing Ghana down the GE road. The so-called success of Bt cotton in Burkina is only being used as a pretext for this agenda.

The start of field trials for Bt crops in Ghana is highly alarming because there is no scientific evidence supporting the long term safety of genetically engineered (GE) crops. “Closed” field trials on research stations are no guarantee of preventing Bt contamination when wind and birds spread pollen laced with insecticide genes. What seems likely as a major factor pushing this highly risky venture is that the Biosafety Committee has been influenced by outside forces.

The risks Ghana is taking by starting down the GE road are many. Bt cotton and Bt rice have the pesticide Bt in every cell of the plant, including the pollen. There is some evidence suggesting that inhaling Bt pollen can sicken people and livestock, and in some cases even cause death, as happened in Mindanao in the Philippines. There are reports that thousands of sheep in India were killed after grazing on the fields of Bt cotton after harvest. And in both Germany and India, cows eating Bt crops have died. Bt infected pollen can drift far and wide, pollinating normal crops, contaminating them with the Bt altered genes. Transgenic proteins, the proteins transferred from one species to another by GE technology, can potentially cause serious immune reactions including allergies. This is a serious public health issue; and warrants an immediate ban on GM crops, including field trials, until proper assessment on the immune potential of all the transgenic proteins has been carried out.

Bt cotton also has a devastating effect on the soil, because the insecticide gene destroys vital microbial organisms, bacteria, and enzymes. A decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food. Bt enters our soil, our air, and our water.

In light of all these reports, the question we Ghanaians need to ask ourselves is: “Do we want to eat, breath, and drink Bt? Do we want to eat animals that have been eating, breathing, and drinking Bt?”

It is highly unfortunate that key scientists involved do not seem concerned by these issues. Dr. Emmanuel Chamba, Plant Breeder and Principal Investigator for Bt Cotton research at the CSIR-Savanna Agric. Research Institute (SARI), Nyankpala, Tamale, seems preoccupied only by finding ways to control cotton’s two main insect pests, Bollworm complex and Sucking pests. And these, he indicated can be well taken care of by the Bt cotton.

But even on this narrow basis, the record of other countries is a savage contradiction to his words. Burkina Faso’s example only shows that the first few years of Bt cotton crops may be a success. But longer term experience in India, China and the US provide strong evidence that the insects soon develop resistance. Also, secondary pests, that before caused little or no damage, soon become major problems. The agrochemical companies then genetically engineer plants with stronger toxins. After the first few years the cotton farmers find they have to treat their fields more frequently with more and stronger chemicals. They enter a cycle of more expensive seeds, more pesticides, and more debt. They are required by contract to buy new seed each year along with the accompanying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In the US and India this has led to a cycle of debt in which the agrochemical company eventually seizes the farmer's land to pay the debt, leaving the farmer with nothing.

These are the grave risks that the Biosafety Committee decision is bringing to Ghana. Are the potential short term benefits of Bt crops worth these multiple risks? What are the lessons we need to learn from what happened in other countries? Even leaving aside the biosafety hazards, and regarding only production, in India, there is a striking correlation in the areas where Bt cotton is widely grown, and a dramatic increase in the rate of farmer suicides, many thousands per month. In most cases the farmers committing suicide have lost their farms due to a cycle of debt they incurred to buy new seed and pesticides, and negative income due to crop failures. Many attribute the huge price increase of cotton seed, which has gone up 8000% in India since Bt seed was introduced, as a contributing factor to farmer suicides.

In many countries, Bt cotton has proven subject to other crop diseases, particularly virus wilt. Farmers in the US and China have found whole fields wilting and when they pull up the plant there are almost no roots. Nothing can be done but destroy the entire field. Even in Burkina Faso, touted as a success story, farmers have been unhappy with the short fibers produced by Bt cotton. Most West African cotton has the highly desirable long fibers. In 2012 there was talk of stopping Bt cotton production completely in Burkina Faso. For now there are reports of a resort to the use of traditional seeds again, and a sharp decline from 70% to 40% of the land surface previously occupied by Bt cotton. So much for the so-called Burkina success story!

Dr. Margaret Ottah Atikpo, of the CSIR Crop Research Institute, stated that if the trials being conducted for genetically modified rice at Fumesua proves successful it will enable Ghana to grow rice that is nitrogen and water efficient as well as salt tolerant. “So that where the soils are poor, it doesn’t matter, it is supposed to thrive. You can grow it where you don’t have swamps and even where there is salt in the soil you can grow it,” she stressed.

However, Bt rice is supposed to help kill insect pests. But in Ghana, insect damage in rice is not a major problem faced by rice farmers. Moreover, Bt rice has nothing to do with what Dr Atikpo is saying about drought tolerance, and nitrogen efficiency. She is reciting the mantra the GE interests have promoted for over 20 years. But there is not yet any widespread example of success of GE crops being more drought resistant, much less significant increases in nitrogen efficiency.

To the contrary, all evidence to date indicates that GE crops need to be coddled with the special chemicals the agrochemical companies have designed for them. Most need more water rather than less. And most need steady and reliable irrigation and are unable to depend on rainwater. They are less likely to tolerate floods or drought, or secondary pests and diseases, than conventional varieties.

GE crops engineered with Bt are seldom used to feed people. They are mostly used for animal feed at present. A recent Australian study shows pigs fed a Bt corn and soy diet have inflamed stomachs and the females have enlarged uteruses. Rats fed GE corn over their lifespan develop enormous tumors. Do Ghanaians want to be human guinea pigs for Bt crops in humans?

Dr. Stephen Amoah, a research scientist at CSIR, Kumasi, says Ghana's agricultural production is beset with a myriad of constraints. “These include declining soil fertility, pests, diseases, low yields of crops, drought, floods, post-harvest losses among others" He neglects to mention that over time all of these become greater problems with GE crops. Even though Ghana has increased food production in recent years, this has been by expanding land under cultivation. He worries about inadequate land to feed Ghana's people.

There are many proven techniques that multiply productivity on very small areas of land, as the recent trend in urban agriculture, and work with agroecology science and farming systems research is demonstrating. These have nothing to do with genetic engineering. Seeds alone do not determine crop productivity. They are a contributing factor, but there are many more factors involved. This is why it is highly beneficial to ensure farmers have access to many varieties of seed, and grow a diversity of crops.

Farmers’ choice among the most appropriate varieties of seed is something the genetic engineers are trying to stamp out with their patented seeds and exclusive contracts. The giant agrochemical companies promoting their GMO varieties in Ghana are using their influence, and money, to divert Ghanaian scientists and politicians away from much more relevant approaches to agricultural science and food security, in their pursuit of profits.

The priority need of Ghanaian farmers is not GE seeds. The only people who need genetically engineered crops are the foreign agrochemical companies and their stockholders who profit from the monopoly sales of these products, with no regard for the human misery and bio-contamination they will cause. GHANAWEB

Pakistan: An unwanted boost

PAKISTAN

An unwanted boost

Every few years, rumblings are heard about Monsanto representatives lurking in the capital over genetically modified (GM) seed prospects. Recently, grumblings preceded the resignation of a government agricultural institution head, following revelations of his promoting private multinational interests. Recently, again, it was over Monsanto’s latest endeavour towards controlling major Pakistani crops.
However, Monsanto did not get comfortable because General Pervez Musharraf sanctioned corporate farming by foreign investors; the earlier Benazir government had already decided on it, rather than land reforms; and the general’s men simply formalised it. In his very first statement as Prime Minister, Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani announced his government’s decision on Monsanto, an inexplicable statement having nothing to do with the rest of his speech. Most listeners ignorant of agricultural issues missed the point. Only television captured it. Governments may change, but agricultural policy clearly hasn’t.
The road to GM agriculture goes back to the sixties Green Revolution in India and Pakistan, indeed, further back several hundred years. A major problem with GM crops is that it is monocultural - meaning a single species planted exclusively on a farm field, whether of a few acres or hundreds or thousands of acres. The monocultural trend, probably, took root when colonials forced natives to plant only selected crops for export, such as cotton. The same reasons prevailed for the cotton-growing slave states of southern USA.
Previously, locals practiced polyculture - mixed crops on the same plot because it was ecologically healthier and sustainable, and simultaneously produced cash crops and food crops in the same season. The Mayans and other Amazonians, the Africans and Asians, everywhere farmers did the same.
A problem in itself, it is compounded because GM monoculture enables a specific crop to spread like wildfire and completely take over, making it impossible for other species to survive in the same space.
What is wrong with monoculture if it is getting the grower the maximum yield possible? It goes against nature.
Monoculture does not - cannot - exist naturally. Nature has been so designed for species to be highly diverse in the hundreds or thousands, with groups of plants and other life forms being interdependent. Diversity is intrinsic, inseparable from nature’s character, and plant health, strength, evolution and perpetuity depends on it.
It is the same principle with humans and animals for which reason marrying within the immediate family, or inbreeding, is forbidden and leads to weakening and degeneration of species. While agricultural institutions at home and abroad focus on “improving” single crops, most ignore this vital characteristic, and little or no research is done on organic polyculture.
In the hoopla over GM, its negative effects are glossed over - absolute uniformity attracting growing armies of predators to feast on; rapid depletion of nutrients from the soil requiring huge replenishments. -- because plants have varying needs requiring anywhere between 34 and a hundred different nutrients in different ratios, most in trace amounts -- unlike one-size-fits-all GM crops.
Previously, benign natural formulations and techniques prevented nutrient depletion or destruction of soil microbial life on which both soil quality and plants are dependent. This has been replaced by heavy applications of chemical fertiliser and pesticides, which trapped farming into a vicious, suicidal circle.
Instead of removing the obvious causes of problems and returning to polyculture, corporate scientists modified the plant instead! So that it could withstand unnaturally high doses of chemicals. After all, Monsanto has primarily been a chemical company for over a century, bringing in billions in global profits. Nothing like revamping its image as a seed company and ‘designer’ plants that blossom with heavy chemical fertilisers and pesticides. It was clever, if perverse, earning the title “Frankencrops”.
Which brings us to GM crops. Since they were not developed out of need or demand, they required heavy advertising, promotion, and co-option of well-rewarded scientists, academics and the media. GM deceived just as the so-called Green Revolution seeds did - after a short-lived spurt of doubled output, they settled down within a few years to the same output or less than traditional crops; expensively too, with purchased inputs. But Green Revolution seeds were at least restricted to the same specie. GM does not even increase output.
In the US, monocultural GM crops work only because of the huge agricultural subsidies doled out - some $20 billion annually - most of it going to the top 10 percent of investors comprising corporate and business megafarms. America’s inefficient corporate agriculture would collapse overnight if this life-support system were withdrawn - but it is all part of the larger scheme of things in which USA keeps a grip on global staples supplies as part of its unwanted, dependency-creating aid, as rescuing hero in disasters and food shortages (some of which it is itself responsible), and speculation undercutting developing country prices.
So why is GM important? It isn’t. For politicians and government appointees lacking bachelor’s degrees or otherwise ignorant of biology and nature’s processes, it fascinates because it is science (or because it may bring under-the-table financial reward). They forget that science is based on human understanding of the universe, which is incomplete and its application through technologies is unpredictable. If a technology is harmful to humans and other life forms or the environment, it is just bad and undesirable. Period.
Like monoculture, GM goes against nature. Genetic engineering (GE) or GM modification (GM) is the forced introduction of a gene from one species into another totally unrelated species - which simply does not occur in nature. Evolved over billions of years, nature has built-in barriers between species that the genes of unlike species cannot cross. Birds don’t cross with other bird species let alone four-leggeds, and so on. Certainly not plants with humans or animals! Thereby, the uniqueness, integrity, health and continuity of each species are maintained.
Yet, scientists have forcibly introduced fish genes into tomatoes, scorpion poison into cabbages, human genes into maize, rice, sugarcane, mice and cows; and much, much more. It smacks of cannibalism. Where does it stop? It may be a matter of time Muslims are forced to give up beef or Hindus some vegetables because of contamination by forbidden animal genes.
So what if a corporation claims their latest GM crop is ‘stacked’ with multiple alien genes to eliminate problems? If it crosses the species barrier risking far-reaching unacceptable consequences, it demands rejection. Many claimed benefits from GM can be achieved more safely through traditional breeding. Many are unnecessary. India has already come to grief with 200,000 farmer suicides over a decade, mostly after Bt cotton introduction; America is currently facing mass crop failure, while cancers keep rising from drenching the earth with chemicals. Consider the countries banning GM seeds. Surely, we don’t want the same. THE NATION

USA: labeling of genetically engineered food


Proposed law would require labeling of genetically engineered food


Read the labels on the boxes and cans in the supermarket, and you can find out whether the food inside contains high-fructose corn syrup, trans fat, gluten, preservatives, artificial sweeteners or common allergens, such as nuts or dairy.
What you won’t be able to determine is whether the food was made with genetically engineered ingredients.
“Genetically engineered food must be labeled so everybody knows what they are buying and eating,” said Herman Brockman, a retired Illinois State University genetics professor, during a recent hearing on Illinois Senate Bill 1666, which would require food nutrition labels to list genetically engineered ingredients.
What are GE foods?
Genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM) is the laboratory process of artificially inserting genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. The result is called a GMO, or genetically modified organism. GMOs can be engineered with genes from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.
Why do it? Genetic alteration can enhance taste and quality, increase nutrients, improve resistance to pests and disease and allow crops to thrive with less water.
Although 64 countries – including Russia, China, Brazil, Spain, Greece, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Vietnam, Australia, Turkey and South Africa – mandate GE labeling, the U.S. is not among them.
There’s a grassroots drive to get a federal “right to know” law enacted; in addition, 26 states have introduced bills on the issue. SB 1666, sponsored by Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, would create the Illinois Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act. It would establish “a consistent and enforceable standard for labeling all foods produced using genetic engineering.”
His subcommittee on food labeling is holding three public hearings on the issue, featuring testimony by both proponents and opponents. A June 20 hearing was held in Normal. The other two are:
--Noon to 2 p.m .today, Student Center, Ballroom C, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale; and
--10 a.m. to noon, Sept. 17, Bilandic Building, Room 600, 160 N. LaSalle St., Chicago.
Are GE foods safe?
One point of controversy at the Normal hearing was whether adequate testing has been done on GE foods to determine whether they are safe to consume.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require or conduct safety studies on GE foods. Proponents say GE food developers voluntarily decide what kind of information they provide to the FDA, so consumers essentially have to take the biotech industry’s word that the food is safe. Whether or not there is a hazard, they say labeling would at least provide transparency, giving consumers information on which to make a choice.
Opponents of the legislation, on the other hand, say that hundreds of independent scientific studies have determined that GE foods are safe. Not only would labeling saddle business with mandated costs, they say, it would create an inference that GE foods are somehow inferior to their conventional counterparts.
“Farmers like me feel they have a moral obligation to provide food for our community, our state, our country and the world,” said Ron Moore of Roseville at the hearing. He farms 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans.
“Biotechnology helps to combat disease, increases annual yields, keeps food prices in check and improves freshness and taste . . . To me, GE labeling is unnecessary and sends a message that GE foods are unsafe, or unhealthy. This will only serve to increase the retail cost of food and discourage new advances in biotechnology that historically have been the hallmark of agricultural research in Illinois,” Moore testified.
Why isn’t this a federal issue?
Some question why states are tackling the labeling issue when it seems to be, more properly, a federal matter. Food products, after all, are often sold in states in addition to the one in which they are grown or processed.
“It’s an issue growing traction across the country, and no action has been taken at the federal level,” Koehler said. “You have to do what you have to do.”
Some at the hearing suggested that -- rather than label GE foods -- it would be simpler for manufacturers to label non-GE foods. Those manufacturers may be more willing to comply; the claim could provide a strong promotional message attractive to consumers. Koehler didn’t rule out changing the legislation to support that.
The wording of the bill is fluid, he said, and “there’s always the chance for amendment.” SJ-R