Labeling Of GMO Foods Has Different Implications For Food Producers

By STEVE JACKSON

The Washington state initiative that calls for labeling genetically modified foods will impact food producers in the state and those that sell here. Some feel it will cost them more, others see it as a chance to expand their market.

I-522 would require genetically modified foods sold in Washington to carry a label stating that they contain GMO’s, or Genetically Modified Organisms. Such foods, like GMO Corn, contain genes from another plant or animal in order to make them grow better or resist pests like insects. Some food producers say that is going to be a tough requirement to meet. Michal Gilmartin is president of Commercial Creamery, based out of Spokane. The company specializes in making specialty dairy, cheese or yogurt powers, the kind found in package foods, like mac and cheese or au gratin potatoes. The company sells those powders to the Mac and cheese producers. But if the GMO labeling rule is approved, Gilmartin says it will likely end up being a complicated and costly process when it comes to dealing with his customers:

Gilmartin: “our sales people and food scientists will be working with their food scientists trying to deicide if there is a simple organic version of this cornstarch that will work or do we replace it with something else. Once we have a reformulation that is acceptable, their question is going to be what will it cost me?”

Gilmartin wonders if some of his food marketing customers might decide to stop sales to Washington state if they have to reformulate at extra cost just to meet GMO requirements. Supporters of I-522 say it’s not about changing any formulas, but merely gives consumers the right to know if a food product contains GMO’s. Even so, Gilmartin worries what that would mean for sales:

Gilmartin: “I think that is the intention of this bill, is to put a label on the front of the food package, and the implication is there is something wrong with this , you’d better be careful.”

In contrast, Matt Davidson runs Davidson Commodities, which markets lentils, garbanzo beans and split peas sold under the name PNW Coop Specialty foods. The produce is grown by a farm cooperative on the Palouse. None of those crops are GMO, and Davidson wants customers to know that. His company has been certified by an independent organization , called the Non-GMO project, as being GMO free:

Davidson: “They are a third party verification company and they go through our plant and all or goods, and certify there are no GMO’s there.”

Davidson says he believes being labeled non-GMO has been a good move, marketwise:

Davidson: “Our non GMO verification status has allowed us to compete in the marketplace with organic varieties. The organic food market can be pretty pricey. A lot of our customers have chosen our product over an organic brand because of that non GMO verification.”

But there is an odd twist to the story. Currently organic foods seem to be a big draw for folks that want to avoid GMO’s. But that doesn’t mean that will always be the case:

Davidson: “you know the biotech companies want to get into the organic market as well, so whose to say down the road, there’s not GMO organic seed available.” 

Washington Voters will decide the fate of Initiative 522 in November. Spokane Public Radio

Why Genetically Modifying Food Is A Bad Idea

Why Genetically Modifying Food Is A Bad Idea

Recently the debate over genetically modified (GMO) foods has heated up again.  In just the past few weeks, articles about GMOs have appeared in Slate, the New York Times, and Grist.  And over the weekend New York Times writer Amy Harmon wrote again of the saving graces of genetically engineered foods, this time citing “Golden Rice” as a clear example of the life saving abilities of GMOs.

Yet journalists on both sides of the argument seem to have forgotten there are many ways aside from “ science” to describe the world around us, and that there are other highly effective tools out there to solve hunger and malnutrition besides genetic engineering.

Let me be clear – I am not “afraid of science,” a claim that someone invariably writes at the end of an article like this one to try and discredit its argument.  I, like millions of people around the world, am against genetic engineering, but not because of the proven or refuted science behind it.

So the question is why?  Why am I part of a huge, and growing, group not willing to believe the “facts” (according to its proponents) about the benefits of genetic modification?  Why am I against the creation of Golden Rice, even if it may stop millions of children from going blind?

The basic answer is simple: trust.

Science has a credibility problem.  It has for too long been used to distort food and twist the natural into long lasting Twinkies and nutritionally void Lunchables.  Tobacco was good for us, we were told, and DDT was fine to spray on our fields.  Food dyes are all still considered safe for our kids to eat, and “natural” foods, we are made to believe, are made of naturally occurring ingredients.

In all cases we have been misled, and today it is not “false fears” that has breed skeptical consumers, it is experience.

Equally suspect is the ridiculous notion that anything in the world – be it love, or windmills, or children, or genetically engineered rice – can be all good.  Regardless of what “scientists,” Bill and Melinda Gates or anyone else involved with creating genetically engineered foods might say, and I am willing to bet the farm there will be unforeseen consequences, just as there are in every other aspect of our lives.  11,000 farmers in the southern United States found this out the hard way when they lost an estimated $150 million in rice sales in 2006 because of a contamination by a genetically modified strain, even though, claims Harmon, “science” says cross pollination will be “extremely limited.”

And what about the assertion that we should all get over our hangups and embrace genetic engineering for the lives it can save?

Gerard Barry of the International Rice Research Institute is quoted in Harmon’s article as saying that “critics who suggest encouraging poor families to simply eat fruits and vegetables that contain beta carotene [instead of Golden Rice] disregard the expense and logistical difficulties that would thwart such efforts.”

This is the most audacious claim made by those who believe genetic engineering is the way to go.  Namely the insistence that genetic engineering is somehow better, and in the long run, cheaper than other more natural ways of eating and that the logistical complexities of getting fruits and veggies to malnourished human beings are too large to overcome.

Baloney.

The amount of money it has cost to concoct a product like Golden Rice is enormous.  Scientists first got initial funding for Golden Rice from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1982 and have now been supported (with monies to cover lab expenses, legal fees, teaching assistants, salaries, long patent processes, etc) for more than 30 years.

Meanwhile, again and again, simple low-cost, low-tech solutions like “kitchen gardening,” improved agricultural methods, and cover cropping have been found to give outstanding nutritional and economic results quickly to farmers.  If people can grow a carrot or yam for far less expense and trouble than developing a strange looking rice (it is bright yellow – and we think getting people to eat brown rice has been hard!) – why aren’t carrots or yams the first stop for solving the problem?

Why are we pouring money into lab salaries, field trials and professional conferences instead of ensuring that people around the world have nutritious – and tasty (do you want to eat only rice?) – food to eat every day?

I believe the real question which needs to be asked is not “why is the public so reluctant to embrace the “science” behind genetic engineering?” but “why are scientists intent on solving solutions in the most costly and complex way imaginable?”  Why has feeding the hungry become a self-serving competition for lab funding when viable solutions to the problem (and the organizations to carry them out) are available now?

Why are we spending millions (billions?) of dollars reinventing the wheel when we already have several that work?

Just because science can improve nutrition by genetically engineering food, doesn’t mean we have to. Forbes

Real threat to food security is ginned-up panic over GMOs

Real threat to food security is ginned-up panic over GMOs

There has been a lot of commotion about GMO crops in the press this summer. It amazes me that there are so many folks trying to gin up panic over GMO crops. These individuals seem to get their information mostly from the Internet and not from documented research or even the hands-on experience most of us have had with these crops for 15 years now. The real problem with GMO crops in my opinion is just plain ignorance on the basics of biology, genetics or more specifically, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).  

The truth is every crop grown has been genetically modified for at least the last 10,000 years. The modern corn plant looks nothing like the ancestral plants, teosinte, which corn originated from. Teosinte does not produce an ear and most folks would mistake it for johnsongrass. Soybeans look nothing like the wild relatives they were selected from thousands of years ago. Most folks looking at soybeans’ wild parents would easily mistake them for kudzu as they do not stand upright but crawl on the ground and most produce very small seed with black coats. Vegetable crops like tomatoes were first selected from plants that produce fruit closer to what horse nettle produces today. The list goes on and on for crops across the spectrum.

The point is, it took thousands of years for our ancestors to select for certain traits and develop all the crops we rely on today to live. It really is a great gift they have given us. The truth is without all the hard work from countless generations to continually select for high yielding nutritious crops, we could not support the population on the planet today.

The problem is it took thousands of years to develop these crops to adequately feed and clothe the world’s population. There will be, at a minimum, another billion mouths to feed by 2050. We do not have thousands of years to develop crops that can feed that population. We have less than 37 years and counting.

The GMO technology is a great tool to help us reach the goal of feeding the population by 2050. This process has proven to speed the development of desperately needed, pest-fighting crops. More recently, increased yield and more water-use-efficient crops have been developed from this process. There are even more exciting new technologies on the horizon. Despite what some folks have found on the Internet, all of this has occurred without any documented problems to the environment or human health. 

My big concern is that 20 or 30 years from now food prices could be so high that people will become desperate to feed their families. That is not a world any of us want. To be able to support that population we will need all the tools available to develop and raise crops. These include not only cultural control methods of integrated pest management like cover crops and crop rotation, but also proven-safe technologies like GMOs. DeltaFarmPress

INDIA: ’No cultivation of Bt Brinjal till clearing of health issues’

’No cultivation of Bt Brinjal till clearing of health issues’

The Government will not allow commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal till independent studies establish that the genetically modified food crop (GM crop) does not impact human health, the Lok Sabha was today informed.

The Environment Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan said “no” in her reply to a written question on whether the government proposes to impose a moratorium on commercialisation of Bt Brinjal in the country.

“The government has imposed a moratorium on commercialisation of Bt Brinjal event EE-I on February 9, 2010 till such time independent scientific studies establish to satisfaction of both the public and professionals, the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment, including the rich genetic wealth existing in Brinjal in our country,” she said.

According to the minister, some of the state governments, NGOs and some section of the scientific and farming communities have expressed apprehensions on the safety of the Bt Brinjal and have called for extreme caution as it is the first GM crop to be introduced in the country.

“There is no proposal to lift the moratorium imposed by the Ministry on commercial release of Bt Brinjal event— EE-I for the purpose of conducting lab tests or field trials,” Natarajan said.

Besides, the issue of GM crops is subjudice in the Supreme Court, she said.

Natarajan also said the Genetically Engineering Appraisal Committee has not received any proposal either for the purpose of research or commercial release of genetically modified fertilisers.PTI

INDIA: Agriculture ministry to make its preference of GM crops loud and clear

Agriculture ministry to make its preference of GM crops loud and clear

As the Supreme Court is set to resume hearing on controversial GM crop issues from next month, the agriculture ministry may in Parliament on Tuesday (August 27, 2013) try to allay the concerns of civil society and NGOs about possible adverse impact of genetically modified organisms on health and environment. It may put forward its arguments quite forcefully by citing success story of Bt Cotton in India and pitch for field trials of genetically engineered food crops. 

Though the ministry is known for its pro GM crop stand, it has so far preferred to remain quiet over the issue leaving it for the apex court to take a call on it while hearing a petition against use of GM crop in India. 
But, the ministry will now try to bring the issue more openly at the time when the country is set to enter food security regime under a new legislation amid a genuine concern to have enough food-grain supply to feed growing population in the long run. 
Emphasizing the need to increase agricultural productivity with the help of biotechnology, the ministry will try to drive home its point by sharing data of commercial use of Bt Cotton in India during past one decade and successful use of GM crops in other countries. 
The point will be made in the Lok Sabha in response to a Parliament Question on Tuesday. The agriculture minister Sharad Pawar may himself respond to the members' concern over the use of Bt Cotton and its impact on overall export and agricultural produce. 
It is expected that the ministry in its response will not restrain itself in stating that the objections of the NGOs and civil society have, in fact, been very speculative and also been without "any reasonable assessment of the technological strengths of Bt Cotton". 
The data, which may be shared by the minister, show that the yield of cotton in the country has increased from 307 kg/hectare in 2003-04 to 488 kg/hectare in 2012-13 (2nd advance estimates). The data on production rate (yield) of Bt Cotton is not maintained separately. However, more than 90% of total cotton area (approximately 12 million hectares) in the country is now under Bt Cotton. 
Agriculture ministry figures show that the country had 11.97 million hectares of land under cotton cultivation in 2012-13 (fourth advance estimates released on July 22) as compared to 7.60 million hectares in 2003-04. As far as total production of cotton is concerned, the period from 2003-04 to 2012-13 had seen increase from 13.73 million bales (170 kg each bale) to 34 million bales in 10 years making India the second largest exporter of cotton. It is learnt that the ministry in its reply to the Parliament Question is also likely to emphasize that there is no scientific evidence to show that Bt Cotton has adversely impacted the biodiversity or human\cattle health. 
The ministry may also pitch for field trials of many GM crops. At present, total 79 applications covering 11 crops including rice, castor, maize, wheat, sugarcane, brinjal, potato, chickpea, mustard and sorghum are pending for approval. Out of the 79 applications, 24 are awaiting no-objection certificate from the state governments while the remaining 55 are yet to be considered by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) pending Supreme Court decision on the entire issue. 
Field trials are necessary to generate relevant bio-safety information relating to particular GM crop and its elaborate analysis to ensure food, feed and environmental safety. A final view on the commercialization of GM crop can only be taken when there is a clear economic and technical justification besides suitability for environment and human. TOI

India: Embracing GM crops

Embracing GM crops

Henry I Miller

The writer is a former director, Office of Biotechnology, the US Food and Drug Administration and fellow at Stanford University.

India has enjoyed signal successes with genetic engineering in agriculture, but its relationship with this environmentally friendly, wealth-enhancing technology may be coming to an end. At the very least, it is in disarray, the victim of activists' scaremongering and government pandering. 

The recommendations of a technical expert committee (TEC) forwarded recently to the Supreme Court are absurd. The TEC has called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials of genetically engineered ("genetically modified" or "GM") crops until alleged deficiencies in the government's regulatory and safety systems have been addressed. 

The truth is that the cultivation of these plants in 2012 on a record 170.3 million hectares worldwide (by more than 17 million farmers) caused not a single mishap — not an ecosystem disrupted or a person given a tummy ache. 

During the past decade, widespread adoption of an insect-resistant, genetically engineered crop called Bt-cotton, which contains a bacterial protein toxic to pests, has drastically reduced the use of chemical pesticides in cotton fields, enhanced food security and improved farmers' bottom line. It took 15 years (1982-97) for cotton yields in India to increase from 200 to 300 kg/hectare, but the availability of Bt-cotton boosted yields from 300 kg/hectare to over 500 kg/hectare during just 2002-08. 

Economists Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot estimate that Bt-cotton boosted India's economyby $9.4 billion from 2002 to 2010 and by $2.5 billion in 2010 alone. Nevertheless, radical activists have made bizarre, baseless allegations about genetically engineered crops, accusing them of causing health problems and economic failures that have supposedly led to mass farmer suicides. 

In August 2012, a report by a parliamentary agriculture committee parroted many of the activists' misrepresentations. It heavily criticised a 2009 regulatory decision to approve genetically engineered brinjal (eggplant) — a rare approval that was won only after years of bureaucratic delays. 

Activist groups have also gone to the courts to halt the testing and commercialisation of GM crops. In October 2012, a Supreme Court-appointed TEC recommended a 10-year blanket ban on field trials of genetically engineered food crops. Scientists noted that the committee ignored copious data on the safety of genetically engineered crops and their promise for Indian agriculture and food production. 

In November, the SC declined to accept the recommendation, pending receipt of a subsequent, more comprehensive report. The TEC has again made the same inexplicable recommendation. 

The interference with genetic engineering has hurt farmers' ability to feed Indians more cheaply and reliably. The government's approach to oversight turns on its head a basic tenet of regulation — the amount of oversight an activity receives should be commensurate with the level of risk it poses. In India, Bt-cotton and Bt-brinjal are crafted using precise, modern laboratory methods that essentially refine, or extend, more primitive, albeit highly successful, ways to perform genetic modification. 

The precision involved actually makes the product safer than "conventional" products as it becomes possible to introduce pieces of DNA that contain only one or a few well-characterised genes. Yet, genetically engineered plants are subjected to extensive, expensive testing and monitoring regimes — and even proposed bans. 

Meanwhile, exempted entirely from regulation are new plants created by using cruder, less predictable breeding techniques, such as "wide-cross" hybridisation, in which large numbers of genes are moved between unrelated plants; and plants that are the result of irradiation to alter DNA and create mutants. 

"The future depends on what you do today," Mahatma Gandhi once observed. And that was never more true than the Indian government's deliberations about whether the nation's farmers will be permitted to embrace 21 {+s} {+t} century agriculture. TOI

Monsanto: 'We need to do a better job in discussing benefits of biotechnology'

'We need to do a better job in discussing benefits of biotechnology'

Q&A: Robert Fraley, chief technology officer, Monsanto

Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto, is a recipient of the prestigious World Food Prize. Some have critisised the fact only those from multinational seed companies have won the award.

In an interview with Sanjeeb Mukherjee, Fraley says the award is won only by individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food. Edited excerpts:

Today, plant biotechnology is deeply divided between pro- and anti-genetically modified (GM) crop people. Do you think this disagreement is hurting the interests of science?

The need for food security and the opportunity for farmers to meet growing demand are much more important than any difference of opinion we may have.

I’m honoured and very thankful for the recognition of modern agricultural biotechnology by the World Food Prize. More importantly, I’m excited about the opportunity this recognition has provided in offering a platform to engage in a dialogue on how we can use science and the tools available to enable a sustainable food supply for all.

I look forward to participating in discussions about what we can do better, what else we need to do and how we can come together to reach that important middle ground.

Does this mean you are willing to reach middle ground between the arguments put forward by pro- and anti-GM activists?

There is a need to set aside the differences we may have so that the focus is on the challenges we face and on delivering real solutions that would help us overcome those challenges. We need to be open to dialogue on how we can use technology, including biotechnology in some cases, to help farmers produce more.

As an industry, we also need to do a better job discussing the benefits biotechnology and other technologies bring, as well as where these technologies can be applied effectively. These are the types of dialogues Fraley is looking forward to.

Overall, it’s about everyone coming to the table to focus on solutions to the challenges we face.

Monsanto has been criticised for various reasons. Do you think being associated with a company that has faced allegations clouds your scientific prowess?

My focus is on the reality that we have a growing planet with shifting diets. With this comes the need to boost the quantity and availability of food. Just as important is the need to do this sustainably, by not clearing forests or wetlands, as well using the land and other resources we have more efficiently.

This leads us back to farmers and the need to help them produce more using the best tools they can gain access to. That’s where our focus is and this is what drives the efforts of our research teams around the world.

Critics say the World Food Prize is the domain of big companies; those who oppose GM technology but are doing excellent work in alternative fields are seldom recognised.

For clarity, Monsanto did not win this prize. The World Food Prize goes to individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food.

The prize is rooted to the dream of Norman E Borlaug; he had envisioned a prize that would honour those who have made significant and measurable contributions to improving global food supply. This year’s prize would be awarded to three scientists who are known as pioneers of agricultural biotechnology.

Do you think the fact that you are chief technology officer of Monsanto diminishes your achievements, as a few critics say?

I’ve had the privilege to work at Monsanto for more than 30 years and couldn’t think of any other place I’d rather be in. I am extremely proud of the work I’ve been involved in throughout my career, as well as for the chance to work with farmers to find solutions to some of the world’s biggest challenges.

What is the future of GM crops, considering in many countries such as India, there is no movement in this segment?

When I reflect on where agriculture was when I started my career and where we are today, I’m astounded. It’s something I always hoped for in the early days of my career.

While I was confident and optimistic, it has certainly exceeded my early expectations. Last year alone, more than 17 million farmers in about 30 countries planted biotech crops. These included more than six million farmers in India.

While that is incredible progress, I really believe we have just started to scratch the surface on what is possible in bringing innovation to farmers around the world.

As the world increasingly faces food shortages and the dependence on quality food increases, do you think it is prudent to rely only on a single technology such as plant biotechnology to solve all shortages? Should we use a combination of approaches?

The benefits and fast adoption of biotech crops in countries around the world speaks of the value these products bring to farmers. I’m confident the technology would continue to be an important tool for farmers.

However, it has always been our belief that biotechnology is just one of the tools that can help farmers grow more food and do it more sustainably.

To meet (consumer) demand, it would take multiple approaches and continued innovation within the entire toolbox of solutions---seed breeding, biotechnology, and agronomic practices, as well as new partnerships. BS