USA: Goldfish 'natural' label

Florida mom sues over Goldfish 'natural' label

 If you've bought Cheddar Goldfish snacks in the past four years, one fed-up Lake Worth, Fla., mom wants to help you get your money back.

And her multimillion-dollar effort has put South Florida on the forefront of a national debate over genetically modified foods.

Disgusted by what her complaint calls false advertising, Palm Beach County elementary schoolteacher Lisa Leo has taken Pepperidge Farm to court, accusing the mammoth food manufacturer of mislabeling its popular fish-shaped crackers "natural" when she contends they contain genetically modified soybeans.

Her lawsuit, filed June 11 in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, seeks class-action status, new labels and at least $5 million in damages to reimburse Florida consumers who purchased the snack since June 2009, claiming the product violates Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"Consumers have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies," said Joshua Eggnatz, Leo's Weston-based attorney. "You may not think GMOs are bad for you, but others may, and the consumer has a right to know and to choose."

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are plant or animal products that have been re-engineered in a lab with the DNA of bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals to increase crop yield or make them heartier, more tolerant of herbicides, and resistant to insects, drought and other environmental factors. General estimates are that about 90 percent of the corn, cotton, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States are genetically altered, and they are most often used in highly processed foods like crackers and cereals.

The FDA has not officially defined what "natural" means in terms of food labels, but its website says the agency "has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances."

Eggnatz said Leo did not want to comment for this story, and he offered few details about why she filed the action.

But according to the complaint, Leo purchased the snacks monthly from three stores in the suburban Boynton Beach area and "paid a premium" for them, believing that the "natural" label meant they contained no GMO ingredients.

Leo, whom Eggnatz described as a middle-aged mother of two and grandmother of one, would have gone with cheaper, non-GMO options for her family's snacks had she known about the Goldfish's modified soybeans, according to the complaint, which does not allege that anyone in Leo's family was sickened by the product.

Pepperidge Farm officials did not return calls for comment.

Though the complaint targets one product, it speaks to a growing concern over the long-term health consequences of America's ever-evolving food supply.

Recent studies have suggested that re-engineered foods can create new unintended toxins and increase the risk of allergies. But the body of evidence is limited and not considered definitive.

Still, more than 60 countries around the world -- including Japan, Australia and the European Union -- ban or significantly restrict the sale and production of the lab-concocted ingredients, and the companies that make them have felt a stinging backlash in recent years.

One of the most visible protests erupted in May, when more than 2 million people around the globe rallied in coordinated demonstrations against St. Louis-based Monsanto, the world's largest manufacturer of genetically modified seeds.

Amid the uproar is a national outcry for mandatory food labels in the United States. Congress is considering a bill that would direct the Food and Drug Administration to "clearly label" genetically modified foods. Florida and 14 other states are seeking to require the labels at the state level.

The food manufacturing lobby has so far been successful in beating back labeling mandates, arguing that consumers will assume that just because a product contains GMOs, it is somehow inferior or not as safe.

"It's a hugely controversial topic, and when you look at both sides, they seem to make a lot of sense," said Lillian Craggs-Dino, a registered dietitian with the Cleveland Clinic in Weston. "There are no easy answers in this one."

Part of the concern over GMOs, Craggs-Dino said, is that many are modified with DNA from other species. Genes from an animal or shellfish, for example, can be added to a seed -- a problematic scenario not just for allergy sufferers but for those following a vegan or Kosher diet.

"I think, ultimately, this is about education, consumer choice," she said. "People want to be educated by what they see on a food label and make an educated decision on whether to buy the product or not." COLUMBIAN

Genetically-Modified Food: Fantastic or 'Frankenfood'?

Genetically-Modified Food: Fantastic or 'Frankenfood'?

By Ted Schettler, M.D., and Steve Heilig, MPH

The debate over GMOs seems far from being resolved, and many consumers are confused. Here is a new blog I co-authored with a leading physician who researches and writes on environmental health and other issues; we strove for a "fair and balanced" science-based review of the issues that concern many people.

About 9 billion humans are expected to be alive by the end of this century -- 2 billion more than now. Hunger and malnutrition have been endemic to our species throughout history and that's true today -- about 870 million people don't get enough to eat now, a result of regional shortages, maldistribution of food, and rising prices. Climate change and water shortages threaten to worsen the problem, perhaps worldwide.

What to do? Biotechnology companies promote genetic modification of some crops and even fish and livestock as essential for addressing worldwide food needs now and in the future. So far, genetic modification has mainly been confined to developing crops that tolerate herbicides and resist pests. They have done little to increase yields, and as predicted, herbicide resistant weeds are becoming a major problem. Foods that add nutrients, like vitamin A-containing rice, and varieties meant to withstand droughts, are just emerging. But these technological approaches to supplying food for a growing planetary population have met a mixed reception. In fact, researchers on all sides say they are demonized in various ways by those who oppose or support GM crops, and scientific and policy debates rage worldwide.

A recent special package of articles in the esteemed journal Nature were summarized inTIME thus:

... while GM crops haven't yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agribusiness, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainably feeding a growing planet.
I have, in the last 10 years, changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe -- some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals -- that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food ... I refute the claims of biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and, of course, that they are safe to eat.
Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist.

A recent unanimous United States Supreme Court decision upheld strict patent rights on GM seeds owned by Monsanto corporation, forbidding farmers from collecting and using seeds from GM plants without purchasing them from the company.

In addition to concerns about corporate control of agriculture, many members of the general public are also concerned with possible personal health risks. An attempt to require labeling of GM products in California failed last year, but consumer campaigns to require such disclosure are having success elsewhere and will likely return here. Grocery chains such as Whole Foods and others are requiring labeling or outright refusing to sell GM products. Online, the claims about GM foods range from them being a panacea for the problems of world hunger, agricultural productivity and the general economy to threatening food security and environmental quality with dire consequences for the human species. What's a doctor to do -- or, rather, say -- to concerned patients, or anybody? In briefest form, here are a few thoughts:

Human Health: A growing and disturbing body of research raises concerns about adverse impacts associated with consumption of GM foods. Novel toxicants, allergens, or changed nutritive value have been reported in various studies, some of which have attracted widespread attention. Unfortunately, the quality of this research varies considerably and debates remain unresolved. Moreover, the FDA has decided that GM crops are "essentially equivalent" to conventionally produced crops and does not require long term feeding studies. Rather, FDA relies on the industry producing the food to attest to its safety.

A former research scientist for Agriculture Canada and GM supporter with much experience in GM work, Thierry Vrain, concludes:

Takeaway: The evidence as of today is that GM foods pose little risk to human health. But concern is growing among some scientists that there are potentially harmful effects from long-term consumption of some GM foods and they are not adequately evaluated before regulatory approval. The AMA has joined other organizations in calling or pre-market safety assessment of GM foods, and the Nature editors advise that this be done by non-industry sources, to lessen, at a minimum, the "PR problem" the GM industry now faces. Many consumers wish to take a precautionary approach and avoid GM food whenever possible until these concerns are resolved.

Socio-Ecological Impacts: The USDA has just postponed approval of a new herbicide-resistant GM corn (2,4 D resistant) due to widely-voiced concerns that such products might actually contribute to increased weed resistance, damage other crops, and contaminate those sold as organic. These kinds of concerns have been part of the core resistance to GM foods almost since their debut. And, in fact, herbicide use has increased with more widespread use of herbicide-resistant crops.

Critics also point out that genetically-engineered crops are generally dependent on patented seeds and synthetic pesticides and fertilizers that help to perpetuate the highly industrialized agricultural model that many farmers around the world cannot afford and do not want. A UN report, "Agriculture at a Crossroads," concluded that addressing global hunger must be relatively inexpensive, require low-inputs, and utilize local and regional resources as much as possible, with a goal of food sovereignty rather than dependence on outside sources.

Takeaway: Evidence of socio-ecologic problems related to use of some GM crops is growing and fundamental questions about the direction of agriculture are among basic concerns. The calculation of costs vs. benefits in this regard is still evolving and may never be resolved.

The Food System and the Consumer: A 2009 123-page UK "evidence-based" paper titled "GMO Myths and Truths" concluded:

Inevitably, this report was both lauded and attacked. A book-length 2010 review of GM food issues by the National Academy of Sciences painted a much rosier picture in economic and ecological terms (they did not address human health), but warning that "excessive reliance on a single technology combined with a lack of diverse farming practices could undermine the economic and environmental gains from these GE crops."

That hints at the broader perspective that is warranted -- in fact, essential. It is increasingly evident that today's dominant food system is unsustainable, not only in the U.S. but also as a global model. As currently designed and operated, this system not only produces a surfeit of food and beverages that contribute to disease and disability but also is responsible for local, regional, and global environmental impacts that directly and indirectly add to the disease burden and degrade ecosystem services on which life depends. Moreover, increasing water scarcity, climate instability, and continued dependence on high inputs of energy, fertilizer, and pesticides challenge the viability of this industrial agricultural model in many regions, even in the near term.

GM foods, even if "successful" in terms of intended impact, fit into this unsustainable model -- supporting practices in terms of resource use and environmental impacts that are unsustainable and unhealthy in the long run. 

Takeaway: Consumers who attempt to make "responsible" buying and eating decisions might want to reduce their purchase of GM food products for any one of a number of reasons. Or they might not. But in order to make that choice, labeling of GM products would be required. Thus, we join the American Public Health Association and many of the world's top food authorities in supporting required labeling of GM foods. To do so allows informed choice, not unlike the basic ethical precept of informed consent in medicine -- not to mention another Hippocratic dictum, "First, do no harm." HUFFINGTON POST

Debate raging over genetically modified foods, including sweet corn

Debate raging over genetically modified foods, including 

sweet corn 

The corn surrounding Oxford seems taller than ever this summer. Hopefully, it’s a sign of a good year for our hard-working local farmers — they deserve it after last year’s destructive heat and drought.

Nearly all corn grown here and nationally is feed corn, which means it is fed to animals or processed into products such as corn syrup. Sweet corn, which we directly consume, such as corn-on-the-cob, is only 1 percent of the corn crop.

In the United States, 88 percent of feed corn is genetically modified (GM). Until recently, very little sweet corn has been GM.

GM is defined by the World Health Organization as food derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally. GM seeds are produced in a laboratory through introduction of genes from different organisms rather than through crosspollination in nature.

Last year, Monsanto, the world’s largest manufacturer of GM seeds, introduced GM sweet corn. Walmart is selling it.

Local farmers selling corn through the Oxford Farmers Market Uptown and MOON Co-op are not knowingly using GM seeds. Nationally, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods, have refused to sell Monsanto’s GM sweet corn.

The benefits of GM include higher yields and greater resistance to pests. Independent testers, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, find no greater health risk from GM food.

Earlier this year, Monsanto was honored with the World Food Prize, regarded as the “Nobel Peace Prize of Agriculture,” for its leadership in GM seeds. GM seeds, says the World Food Prize, will feed a growing world population.

Opponents say that planting GM seeds destroys long-standing ecological balances in local agriculture. Consuming large quantities of GM is alleged to reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics.

Europeans are especially strongly opposed to GM food because they believe it is less safe and nutritious than traditionally bred crops and livestock. European governments have banned or severely restricted the growing and import of most GM products. Those that are sold in Europe must be labeled as GM.

GM foods sold in the United States do not need to be labeled. Voters in California last year turned down a proposition that would have required labeling of GM foods.

For those who wish to avoid GM corn, in the absence of labels, the best strategy is to know your growers. At MOON Co-op Grocery, locally grown and raised food is identified with the name of the specific farm. GM products, including corn, are not knowingly sold at MOON.

At the same time, those who avoid GM products recognize that GM corn and soybeans play important roles in our local farm economy and the beautiful agricultural landscape surrounding Oxford.

Several local growers have been supplying non-GM sweet corn to MOON Co-op, Oxford’s consumer-owned full-service grocery featuring natural, local, organic, sustainable, and Earth-friendly products. The store, located at 512 S. Locust St. in Oxford, is open to the public every day. www.mooncoop.coop

oxfordpress