Biotech Giants Spend Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling

Giant bio-technology corporations like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer have spent millions of dollars to defeat efforts to label foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Now their efforts turn to Washington state where a vote on the issue is scheduled for Nov. 5. 

More than 40 countries already require that food labels identify whether products contain GMOs. The labeling bill in Washington state seeks to label but not ban foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. 

“Labeling genetically engineered foods would give shoppers more control over their shopping decisions,” reads a statement on the YES on 522 website funded by proponents of a GMO labeling bill in Washington state.

 A woman holds a sign during a demonstration against Monsanto and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in front of the White House, May 25, 2013. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Washington Vote Different From California Vote

Washingtonians who support labeling GMO foods initiated a grassroots movement called Yes on 522. The Initiative Measure No. 522 was filed on June 29, 2012.

In November 2012, a similar action was defeated in California by a narrow margin. The opponents of GMO labeling spent $45.6 million and the pro-labeling group $8.7 million, according to Ballotpedia. 

The Washington vote plays out differently when compared to the California vote. The Washingtonians don’t go to the polls, but vote through the absentee ballot during a three-week period.

Washingtonians have also been against GMO food for some time “because of the ongoing industry efforts to gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a genetically engineered salmon,” according to Politico. 

The pro-labeling group is winning in polls as of September. They have outpolled those against labeling with a ratio of 3-to-1, according to an Elway Poll.

Millions Spent to Defeat GMO Labeling

The largest and most vocal challengers of I-522 are Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer.

By September, Monsanto and its allies collected $11.6 million and spent $1.7 million, while its opponents raised approximately $5.5 million and spent $1.9 million, according to Ballotpedia. 

In California, Monsanto spent $8.1 million and DuPont $5.4 million to defeat the GMO labeling initiative. The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent $2 million against the effort. The association includes Safeway Inc., Starbucks Corp., Target Corp., Kellogg Co., Kraft Foods Inc., General Mills Inc., Hershey Co., Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., and others. 

Biggest Spender Not Necessarily Winner

Proponents of GMO labeling suggest that being outspent does not mean that the measure will be defeated. So far, the odds are in favor of the pro-labeling group. 

Many proponents say that if the opponents have nothing to hide, they wouldn’t spend so much money to defeat a measure that only asks to label GMO products and does not prohibit them. Theepochtimes

USDA says unapproved genetically engineered wheat discovered in Oregon field

WASHINGTON - Unapproved genetically engineered wheat has been discovered in an Oregon field, a potential threat to trade with countries that have concerns about genetically modified foods.

The Agriculture Department said Wednesday that the genetically engineered wheat is safe to eat and there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the marketplace. But the department is investigating how it ended up in the field, whether there was any criminal wrongdoing and whether its growth is widespread.

"We are taking this very seriously," said Michael Firko of the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

A farmer discovered the genetically modified plants on his farm and contacted Oregon State University, which notified USDA early this month, Firko said.

No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming. USDA officials said the wheat is the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was legally tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved. Monsanto stopped testing that product in Oregon and several other states in 2005.

The discovery could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. wheat industry if the growth of the engineered product turns out to be far-flung. Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Director Katy Coba said in a statement that the discovery is "a very serious development that could have major trade ramifications." The state exports about 90 per cent of its wheat.

"I am concerned that a highly regulated plant material such as genetically modified wheat somehow was able to escape into a crop field," she said.

USDA officials declined to speculate whether the modified seeds blew into the field from a testing site or if they were somehow planted or taken there, and they would not identify the farmer or the farm's location. The Oregon Department of Agriculture said the field is in the eastern part of the state.

The discovery also could have implications for organic companies, which by law cannot use genetically engineered ingredients in its foods. Organic farmers have frequently expressed concern that genetically modified seed will blow into organic farms and contaminate their products.

U.S. consumers have shown increasing interest in avoiding genetically modified foods. There has been little evidence to show that modified foods are less safe than their conventional counterparts, but several state legislatures are considering bills that would require them to be labeled so consumers know what they are eating.

While most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are already modified, the country's wheat crop is not.

USDA said the unidentified farmer discovered the modified wheat when farm workers were trying to kill some wheat plants that popped up between harvests. The farmer used the herbicide glyphosate to kill the plants, but they did not die, prompting the tests at Oregon State to find out if the crops were genetically engineered to resist herbicides.

The tests confirmed that the plants were a strain developed by Monsanto to resist its herbicides and tested between 1998 and 2005. At the time Monsanto had applied to USDA for permission to develop the engineered wheat, but the company later pulled its application.

The Agriculture Department said that during that seven-year period, it authorized more than 100 field tests with the same glyphosate-resistant wheat variety. Tests were conducted in in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming.

During that testing and application process, the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the variety found in Oregon and said it was as safe as conventional varieties of wheat.

Officials said they have received no other reports of discoveries of genetically modified wheat. Firko and Acting Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Michael T. Scuse said they have already been in touch with international trading partners to try and assuage any concerns.

"Hopefully our trading partners will be understanding that this is not a food or feed safety issue," Scuse said. Globalpost

Can GMOs be used in organic?

The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer cannot plant GMO seeds, an organic cow cannot eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer cannot use any GMO ingredients.

To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show that they are not using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances from farm to table.

Organic operations implement preventive practices based on site-specific risk factors, such as neighboring conventional farms or shared farm equipment or processing facilities. For example, some farmers plant their seeds early or late to avoid organic and GMO crops flowering at the same time (which can lead to cross-pollination). Others harvest crops prior to flowering or sign cooperative agreements with neighboring farms to avoid planting GMO crops next to organic ones. Farmers also designate the edges of their land as a buffer zone where the land is managed organically, but the crops are not sold as organic. Any shared farm or processing equipment must be thoroughly cleaned to prevent unintended exposure to GMOs or prohibited substances.

All of these measures are documented in the organic farmer’s organic system plan. This written plan describes the substances and practices to be used, including physical barriers to prevent contact of organic crops with prohibited substances or the products of “excluded methods” such as GMOs. On-site inspections and records verify that farmers are following their organic system plan. Additionally, certifying agents conduct residue testing to determine if these preventive practices are adequate to avoid contact with substances such as prohibited pesticides, antibiotics, and GMOs.

Any certified organic operation found to use prohibited substances or GMOs may face enforcement actions, including loss of certification and financial penalties; however, unlike many pesticides, there are not specific tolerance levels in the USDA organic regulations for GMOs. As such, National Organic Program policy states that trace amounts of GMOs do not automatically mean the farm is in violation of the USDA organic regulations. In these cases, the certifying agent will investigate how the inadvertent presence occurred and recommend how it can be better prevented in the future. For example, they may require a larger buffer zone or more thorough cleaning of a shared grain mill.

USDA supports all methods of agriculture production, including organic, conventional and biotechnology. To help these different methods coexist better, USDA has convened an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture. Organic stakeholders are well-represented on AC21.

Consumers purchase organic products expecting that they maintain their organic integrity from farm to market, and USDA is committed to meeting these expectations. No matter where it was grown, if a product has the USDA Organic label on it, it was not produced with GMOs.

According to USDA, an organic farmer might set up several buffer zones to protect the integrity of the organic crops from GMOs. Where the farm borders a conventional farm, the organic producer might set aside an area which he will farm organically, but he will not sell that land’s crops as organic. Additionally, he posts “no spray” signs on the borders of her property and has another buffer zone on the left side to protect the farm from unintended substances from the local road. A buffer zone might include a row of trees to reduce erosion.Agriview

GOLDEN RICE

GOLDEN RICE

Image Caption: Golden Rice grain compared to white rice grain in screenhouse of Golden Rice plants. Credit:International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)/Wikipedia (CC BY 2.0)

Golden Rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced  through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of the rice. The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A, a deficiency which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under five years old each year.

Golden rice is different from its parental strain by the addition of three beta-carotene biosynthesis genes. The scientific details of the rice were initially published in Science in 2000, the product of an eight-year project by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. At the time of the publication, golden rice was considered a significant breakthrough in biotechnology, as the researchers had engineered an entire biosynthetic pathway.

In 2005, a new variety named Golden Rice 2, which produces up to 23 times more beta-carotene than the original golden rice, was revealed. Although Golden Rice was developed as a humanitarian tool, it has been met with substantial opposition from environmental and anti-globalization activists. Golden Rice has undergone 2 years of field testing within the Philippines.

Golden Rice was designed to generate beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible portion of the rice, the endosperm. The rice plant can naturally create beta-carotene within its leaves, where it’s involved in photosynthesis. However, the plant doesn’t normally produce the pigment in the endosperm, where photosynthesis doesn’t take place. A crucial breakthrough was the discovery that a single phytoene desaturase gene (bacterial CrtI) can be utilized to create lycopene from phytoene in GM tomato, as opposed to having to introduce the multiple carotene denaturizes that are usually utilized by higher plants. Lycopene is then cyclized to beta-carotene via the endogenous cyclase in Golden Rice.

The Golden Rice was created by transforming rice with only two beta-carotene biosynthesis genes: psy (phytoene synthase) from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) and crtI (carotene desaturase) from the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora. The insertion of a lyc (lycopene cyclase) gene was thought to be required, but further research proved it’s already being produced in wild-type rice endosperm.

The psy and crtI genes were transformed into the rice nuclear genome and placed under the control of an endosperm-specific promoter, so they are only expressed in the endosperm. The exogenous lyc gene has a transit peptide sequence connected so it is targeted to the plastid, where geranylgeranyl diphosphate formation takes place. The bacterial crtI gene was a significant inclusion to accomplish the pathway, since it can catalyze multiple steps in the synthesis of carotenoids up to lycopene, while these steps need more than one enzyme in plants. The end product of the engineered pathway is lycopene, but if the plant accumulated lycopene, the rice would be colored red. Recent analysis has shown the plant’s endogenous enzymes process the lycopene to beta-carotene in the endosperm, giving the rice the distinguishing yellow color for which it is named. The original Golden Rice was named SGR1, and under greenhouse conditions it generated 1.6 micrograms per gram of carotenoids.

Golden Rice has been bred with local rice cultivars within the Philippines, Taiwan, and with the American rice cultivar ‘Cocodrie’. The first field trials of these golden rice cultivars were performed by Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in 2004. Field testing supplies a more accurate measurement of nutritional value and permits feeding tests to be performed. Initial results from the field tests have displayed field-grown golden rice produces four to five times more beta-carotene than golden rice that is grown under greenhouse conditions.

In 2005, a team of researchers at biotechnology company, Syngenta, created a variety of golden rice named “Golden Rice 2”. They joined the phytoene synthase gene from maize with crtI from the original golden rice. Golden Rice 2 produces 23 times more carotenoids than golden rice, and preferentially accumulates beta-carotene. To receive the Recommended Dietary Allowance, it’s estimated that 144 grams of the most high-yielding strain would have to be consumed. Bioavailability of the carotene from golden rice has been established and found to be an effective source of Vitamin A for humans.

In June of 2005, researcher Peter Beyer received funding form the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to further enhance golden rice by increasing the levels of the bioavailability of pro-vitamin A, vitamin E, iron, and zinc, and to enhance protein quality through genetic modification.

The research that led to golden rice was performed with the objective of helping children who suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD). In 2005, 190 million children and 19 million pregnant women, in 122 countries, were estimated to be affected by vitamin A deficiency. VAD is held responsible for 1 to 2 million deaths, 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and millions of cases of xerophthalmia annually. Children and women who are pregnant are at the highest risk. Vitamin A is supplemented orally and by injection in areas where the diet is lacking Vitamin A. As of 1999, there were 43 countries that had vitamin A supplementation programs for children under the age of 5; in 10 of these countries, two high dose supplements are obtainable per year, which, according to UNICEF, could efficiently eradicate VAD. However, UNICEF and numerous NGOs involved in supplementation note more frequent low-dose supplementation must be an objective where it is possible.

Because many children within countries where there is a dietary deficiency in vitamin A depend on rice as a staple food, the genetic modification to make rice produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene is seen as an effortless and less expensive alternative to vitamin supplements or an increase in the consumption of green vegetables or animal products. It can be considered as the genetically engineered equivalent of fluoridated water or iodized salt in that it aids in preventing disease, with the exception that fluoride isn’t an elemental nutrient for survival.

Initial analysis of the potential nutritional benefits of golden rice proposed consumption of golden rice wouldn’t get rid of the issues of vitamin A deficiency, but should be seen as a complement to other techniques of vitamin A supplementation. Since then, improved strains of golden rice have been developed having adequate provitamin A to provide the total dietary requirement of this nutrient to people who eat about 75 grams of golden rice each day.

Particularly, since carotenes are hydrophobic, there needs to be an adequate amount of fat present within the diet for golden rice to have the ability to lessen vitamin A deficiency. In that respect, it’s significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but normally coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet. The RDA levels accepted in developed countries are far in excess of the amounts required to prevent blindness. Furthermore, this claim referred to an early cultivar of golden rice; one bowl of the latest version provides 60 percent of RDA for healthy children.

Critics of genetically engineered crops have raised a variety of concerns. One of these is that golden rice originally didn’t have sufficient vitamin A. This issue was solved by the development of new strains of rice. Nonetheless, there are still doubts about the speed at which vitamin A degrades once the plant is harvested, and how much remains after cooking it. A study in 2009 concluded that golden rice is successfully converted into vitamin A in humans and a 2012 study that fed 68 children ages 6 to 8 concluded that golden rice was as good as vitamin A supplements and better than the natural beta-carotene in spinach.

Greenpeace opposes the release of any genetically modified organisms into the environment and is concerned that golden rice is a Pandora’s Box that will open the door to more common usage of GMOs.

Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued that the issue wasn’t that the crop had any particular deficiencies, but that there were potential issues with poverty and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These issues are aggravated by the corporate control of agriculture by means of controlling genetically modified organisms. By concentrating on a narrow issue (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, the golden rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability of diverse and nutritionally sufficient food sources. Other groups argued that a varied diet containing foods that are rich in beta carotene such as sweet potatoes, leafy green vegetables, and fruit would supply children with adequate vitamin A. However, Keith West of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has argued that foodstuffs containing vitamin A are either not available, or only available in certain seasons, or that they are too expensive for poor families in underdeveloped countries.

Due to a lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca concludes “giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem”. More recently, author Michael Pollan, who had attacked the product in the year 2001, while still doubtful about the benefits, expressed support for the continuance of the research.

An experimental plan of golden rice being grown within the Philippines was uprooted during direct action on August 8, 2013. While the action was, at first, credited to 400 local farmers, it was later found to have been performed by a group of 50 anti-GMO activists.

Potrykus has organized an effort to have golden rice distributed for free to subsistence farmers. Free licenses for developing countries were arranged quickly due to the positive publicly that golden rice received, especially in Time magazine in July of 2000. Golden Rice was said to be the first recombinant DNA tech crop that was unarguably advantageous. Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to permit free licenses. The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at 10,000 US dollars. Thus, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of Golden Rice genetics doesn’t make more than 10,000 dollars per year, no royalties need to be paid. Additionally, farmers are allowed to keep and replant seed. Redorbit

GMO labeling is a pointless burden

GMO Labeling

Letter: GMO labeling is a pointless burden

by Monroecourier

To the editor:

This past June the state of Connecticut passed a genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bill that would require all food manufacturers to label any food that contained genetically modified or engineered ingredients. Proponents of the bill, led by the grassroots organization GMO Free CT, claim that GM foods are harmful to our health and the environment. However there is currently no scientific evidence that GM foods are dangerous to one’s health. In fact evidence shows that GM foods benefit our health and decrease environmental impacts by improving the nutritional content of food and allowing farmers to use less land and pesticides to grow more crops.

Furthermore, GM foods undergo rigorous testing and stringent risk-assessment procedures before hitting the shelves, overseen by the Food and Agriculture Association and World Health Organization. They test for toxicity, allergenicity and possible secondary health effects from an introduced gene. Furthermore they test for potential effects on biodiversity in an ecosystem from unintended gene transfer. Presently no major dangers have been identified in the process of genetically engineering foods.

This labeling law is an unnecessary, cumbersome and expensive regulation for food manufacturers, who will now be dissuaded to sell their products in Connecticut businesses. Instead of invoking a law based on irrational fear and distrust in our food system, let’s educate the consumer on the scientific facts behind GM foods and the benefits they provide to our community and our world.

Sara Velardi
Monroe