FDA, 'Natural' and GMO products

Will the FDA take a stance on “natural” claims for GMO products?

A California federal court judge hopes that the Food and Drug Administration is ready to take a stance on “natural” advertising claims for genetically modified organisms. He issued an order in July to refer the issue to the agency.

The order arose from a consumer class action filed by Elizabeth Cox against Gruma Corporation. Cox alleged that the company falsely advertised its tortilla chips, among other products, as “All Natural,” even though they contained corn grown from bioengineered, genetically modified seeds.

Gruma responded with a motion to dismiss based upon primary jurisdiction, a doctrine that allows a court to stay proceedings “pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.” The doctrine normally applies to matters of first impression or in a case with a particularly complicated issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the defendant that the expertise of the FDA – to which Congress granted regulatory authority over food labeling – was required under the facts of the case.

The agency has separately issued nonbinding industry guidance on bioengineered foods and the use of “natural” labels. In January 2001, the FDA wrote that it was “not aware of any data or other information that would form a basis for concluding that the fact that a food or its ingredients was produced using bioengineering is a material fact that must be disclosed. . . . FDA is therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.” Previously, in 1993, the agency interpreted the term “natural” on labels to mean “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

However, Rogers wrote, the FDA “has not addressed, even informally, the question of whether foods containing GMO or bioengineered ingredients may be labeled ‘natural’ or ‘all natural,’ or whether GMO or bioengineered ingredients would be considered ‘artificial or synthetic.’ ”

“Under these circumstances, deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority is the appropriate course,” the court concluded. “Therefore. . . this Court refers to the FDA, for an administrative determination, the question of whether and under what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using bioengineered seed may or may not be labeled ‘Natural’ or ‘All Natural’ or ‘100% Natural.’ ”

Judge Rogers stayed the action for six months from the date of the order, a time that could be extended. LEXOLOGY

CARE2: MONSANTO STOCK IN DANGER, INVESTOR WARNS

Monsanto Stock in Danger, Investor Warns

I was shocked to read a story in Canada’s highly conservative national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, a couple of days ago in which well-known investor and columnist Chris Umiastowski, P.Eng., MBA, warned of the risk in holding Monsanto stock.  It was refreshing to read the views of an investor who is not just concerned about the bottom line but also the potential health and environmental risks in such a conservative paper. I knew that this was a victory-of-sorts for all of us who share a concern over the increasingly genetically-modified nature of our food supply.

In his column, “Monsanto:  A food stock with a bad aftertaste,” he shares: “it’s just as important to know what stocks to avoid as it is to know which ones to invest in. Most growth trends don’t last forever and you don’t want to be stuck holding the bag when growth disappears or reverses.” Here is an investor who is recognizing the “battle raging between consumers and Monsanto” that could leave fallout for investors left holding the bag when consumers take back their right to know what is contained in the food they eat.

While labelling of GM-foods is not legally required in Canada or in the United States, consumer groups are gradually certifying an increasing number of foods as “GM-Free” as a way to take back a right that regulators are not recognizing that we deserve. Consumers are waging a peaceful revolution against Monsanto and other GM-food suppliers as well as the government agencies that turn a blind eye to the environmental and health ramifications of GM-foods and crops. As an aside:  European governments have been more progressive in recognizing the human right to know when our food supply has been tampered with and many countries there consider labeling of GM foods standard practice.

But back to the article I read:  This investor admits that he normally writes about technology stocks and trends, adding “you may not realize that what we feed ourselves and our families has a lot of biotechnology baked into it.” Corn, soy, canola, and many other crops are increasingly genetically-modified. Even tomatoes are turning into Frankenfoods at the hands of agribusiness (Check out my article 11 Reasons to Love Tomatoes, no genetically-engineering is not one of them).

Mr. Umiastowski adds that “the trend will be toward more ingredient labeling, not less. And, this poses a big danger to Monsanto.”  Equally important, he continues, “personally, I’d rather own a business that is not only growing at a solid clip, but feels good to hold in my portfolio.  For me, Monsanto doesn‘t cut it.”

Most of these thoughts may not sound like news to environmentalists and health-conscious readers of Care2.com, but having both a top national investor and a leading conservative paper publish these views is what makes this article stand out for me.

And since not enough people are really aware of the stocks held in their pension plans, mutual funds, and other investment portfolios, it’s a call to action to literally, put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. CARE2

GMO FOOD: EU Trade Deal

EU Trade Deal Talks Stumbling Because Of Irrational Paranoia About GMO Food

The U.S. and EU want to strike a trade deal. The two economies make up 45% of the world's GDP. The results could change the world. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIPS), as it is known, is expected to nibble at protectionist restrictions on trade.

But significant changes are at risk. Europe's devotion to unscientific GMO regulations pose a regrettable obstacle.

The problem Europeans have is this: the United States's health and safety regulations are more lenient. Europeans are, perhaps understandably, wary of U.S. requests to strip significant regulations. Some worry this could ultimately compromise the safety and health of European consumers.

But unsubstantiated information drives the regulation of genetically modified foods.

According to Reason Magazine, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that said "No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." International Council for Science, the World Health Organization, and the European Commission all released similar reports.

There are a countless instances where GMO opponents have distorted the facts. One French study found that feeding rats genetically-modified corn induced cancer. The scientific community rejected the study, pointing at manipulated data, the secretiveness of the study, and the lead author's crooked reputation (and well, several other factors).

Most evidence says that GMOs are perfectly safe. The "GMO Scare" relies on misinformation and questionable science. But their safety remains a feverishly controversial topic. The half-truths are circulated widely and people continue to hold an irrational fear of GMOs.

Europe currently restricts the import of genetically altered foods from the U.S., like "hormone-treated beef, pork produced from hormone-fed pigs, and genetically-modified corn and soybeans." Internally, it requires GMO labeling. François Hollande, president of France, says he refuses to budge on the issue. (But then again, France has a large agricultural sector it seeks to protect.)

Other European policymakers firmly oppose lifting barriers.

Some argue that the EU is more concerned about public health and safety. Corporate Europe, a publication dedicated to "exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU" has launched a campaign called Stop the Crop. In addition to questioning the safety of GM foods, Corporate Europe Observatory argues that this is a "unique opportunity for big business."

The Christian Science Monitor ascribes these dissimilar approaches to GMOs to cultural differences. Europeans think Americans are too anti-regulation and that americans support big business interests above the safety of citizens.

The talks are expected to take a while. Policymakers hope to strike a deal by fall of next year. Hopefully GMO-related concerns will not continue to beleaguer the process. Substantial, necessary changes are are at risk of melting away, or producing lackluster results, because of overblown, irresponsible disagreements.

Trade is awesome. Topple the barriers and let us reap the benefits.POLICYMIC

GMO Labels: The market is deciding on GMO labels

The Market is deciding on GMO labels

No one wants to take a risk with their food.

Nothing profound about that. But it helps explain any number of regulatory controversies, including whether to require labels on genetically modified foods.

The marketplace may be settling the issue right now. That’s fine with us as the question seems to be one of preference rather than science.

Consider two recent articles in the paper in balancing concerns about genetic engineering and its role in preserving foods that might otherwise disappear from our tables.

The first story celebrated the resurgence of the Bodega Red potato. This was one of Sonoma County’s first cash crops in the 1850s, but it was all but extinct by the late 20th century because of blight and poor farming practices.

As Staff Writer Diane Peterson explained, the comeback of the spud that gave Spud Point its name began with an anonymous donor who provided a half-dozen tiny tubers in response to a call several years ago by Slow Food Sonoma County North, a group that promotes alternatives to fast food.

The potatoes were sent to a U.S. Department of Agriculture research lab in Washington for genetic fingerprinting. Then the Bodega Red was regenerated minus the virus that threatened to wipe it out.

“Pure Potato in Washington state did a tissue culture,” Elissa Rubin-Mahon told Peterson. “They grow them in the petri dish, then they cut out anything that doesn’t belong.”

The second story involves Florida citrus, a billion dollar crop threatened by a disease that sours oranges and leaves them half green.

“In all of cultivated citrus, there is no evidence of immunity,” the plant pathologist heading a National Research Council task force on the disease told the New York Times.

For now, growers are combating the threat by spraying more pesticides, an approach that also has critics among consumers just as GMOs do.

In the long run, some growers believe, the only way to save Florida’s citrus industry is genetically engineering orange trees to resist the disease.

The question is, will consumers accept GMO orange juice? Or Bodega Red potatoes? Or any of hundreds of other products?

As a matter of health and safety, the Food and Drug Administration says there isn’t any evidence of different or greater risks associated with foods developed through bioengineering.

Still, some consumers want to avoid bioengineered foods. And there is a movement to require labels to include whether any food product or its ingredients have been genetically modified.

California voters rejected such a measure last year, but legislation is pending in several states and Congress to require labeling.

For now, however, the market is ahead of the regulators. Whole Foods announced in March that it would require labeling of any GMO products on its shelves, and Trader Joe’s said food sold under its label don’t have GMOs.

If GMO-free is what consumers want, more retailers will follow. It won’t take a new law. PRESSDEMOCRAT

'GMOs to promote industrialisation'

'GMOs to promote industrialisation'


State minister for industry and technology James Mutende is hopeful that the introduction of the genetically modified foods (GMOs) would promote industrialisation through value addition.

Mutende, who was officiating at the closure of the 1st National Bio-Safety Conference at Makerere University Food Technology Centre, observed that the delayed passing of the Bio-safety and Bio technology Bills does not favour Uganda’s industrialisation.

“Industrialisation is what is moving the world forward. We are talking about improving productivity so that we can produce a lot for commercial purposes. If you have a piece of land and you are producing maize without using genetically modified seeds, you could get 1,000kg of maize, while the one who uses bio technology, which are high yielding, would end up getting 10,000kg out of the same land,” he said.

He added that the use of bio-technology will enhance job creation because farmers will be able to use high yielding resistant crops and engage in commercial production.

“Once you produce more and make it available for industries for value addition, that’s job creation and more revenue,” he said.

Mutende advised the scientists to come out and show everyone what is behind bio technology to allay people’s fears about the technology.

“There are some negative aspects because some scientists are misguided and are campaigning against the bio safety and biotech Bill yet we need it to ensure increased production and at the same time guarantee safety for all of us,” he said.

Eng. Robert Sekitooleko, the vice-chairperson of the parliamentary committee on science and technology, said it will be unfortunate for Ugandans to consume unlabelled imported genetically modified foods yet Ugandan farmers have been denied a chance to grow them.

Mukono district farmers’ coordinator Silver Nganda called for the empowerment of farmers coordinators with knowledge on bio technology to disseminate it to fellow farmers. NEWVISION

CAN WE FEED THE WORLD?

Your burning questions about GM answered

by canwefeedtheworld

Ever wanted to know if GMOs are dangerous to human health or if GMOs pose a risk to the practice of harvesting and saving heirloom seeds? Well now you can have your questions answered. A new website, GMO Answers, has been recently launched. It is an initiative aiming to respond to questions about how food is grown and to make information about GMOs in food and agriculture easier to access and understand. It is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, and National Cotton Council. Standing at the forefront of the GM market, founders of the site acknowledge that they haven’t done the best job in communicating around their work. This website gives us a chance to grill them on the things we want to know about GM. That said, is this just a PR campaign for the seed corporations and farm lobbies of the US or a desperate attempt to gain ground against the advancing activists? We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences of using the site.

http://canwefeedtheworld.wordpress.com/

This website is an arena for new and up-to-date information related to the book 'One Billion Hungry: Can we feed the world?', authored by Professor Sir Gordon Conway with Katy Wilson. Your comments and contributions are very welcome, and encouraged.

Is genetic modification and GM food good or bad?

Expert grower and horticulturist urges us to keep an open mind

Would you eat genetically modified (GM) food? The gut reaction of the majority of us it seems is to say ‘no’.

It is a question the Prime Minister refused to answer recently, despite being asked ten times.

But the chances are, he, you and most of us already have – or at least we are likely to have consumed meat, milk or eggs from animals fed on GM maize or soya, that is imported into the EU in large quantities.

There is no requirement for such products to be labelled differently and only one supermarket in the UK assures customers, at least for the time being, its supply chain is GM free.

The debate concerning genetically modified organisms, or GM foods, was reignited recently by a keynote speech made by Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary. Calling for a more informed discussion on genetic modification, Mr Paterson said he owed a duty to the British public to reassure us that GM is safe, proven and beneficial.

However, with frightening Frankenstein foods making the headlines again, and surveys showing the majority of shoppers wanting GM food banned from supermarkets, the debate was already becoming reactionary and ideological before a more reasoned approach could even begin.

Most reports mentioned the Flavr Savr tomato, which in 1994 in the US became the first commercially grown genetically modified product to be granted a licence for human consumption.

Intrigued by the issues, and prompted by repeated images of the red fruit, it was time to contact our very own tomato expert, Tony Girard from West Chiltington, for a more rational discussion about GM.

Tony is not an expert in GM, nor does he have vested interests or stakes in companies associated with the technology.

Instead, the 69 year old is a horticulturist who was at the forefront of commercial tomato growing in the UK for more than 30 years, responsible for the expansion of Sussex-based large scale tomato producer Van Heyningen Brothers to around 200 acres under glass.

The vice chair of the SCI Horticultural Group and past president of The Institute of Horticulture was also instrumental in pioneering the large scale use of the growing of crops in ‘grow bags’ and developed the pot herb business in the UK, the product of which is now very familiar in all supermarkets.

He now works for Koppert Biological Systems and, as its UK Director, helps to support the production of crops with little or no use of harmful chemicals – an awesome arsenal of ‘good guys’ consisting of bugs, bacterium and fungi used to control pests instead.

Chatting in the beautiful gardens of his Wells cottage, we discussed the definition of ‘natural’ and why GM causes such great concerns for so many.

Holding a tomato from his kitchen, Tony reflected how the original tomato wasn’t sweet, was very small, and looked distinctly unattractive. It was also thought to be poisonous.

“Everything that we eat these days started off as being something which is found in nature – but it’s been selected and reselected, cultivated and nurtured until it is something that we want,” said Tony, emphasising the ‘we’, before adding: “As opposed to what nature provided us with in the first place.

“So, we can call what we see today perfectly natural, but natural compared to when? 100 years ago? 1 million years ago?

“Everything evolves, and with tomatoes, the cross pollination breeding programmes that have taken place over many years bring us to where we are now,” he said, looking again at his shop-bought specimen.

Mankind has always applied science and technology, with selective breeding in the past and new fertilizers and pesticides more recently, to achieve the results we have wanted.

So, is GM just an extension of this historical process - the appliance of science on the genetic level, now that advances in technology permit such manipulation? Or is GM a true step-change?

“It is a step-change,” asserted Tony, going on to describe how with genetic engineering genes are removed from one plant species and moved to another to facilitate desirable characteristics.

And the same process can be carried out between an animal species and plant which he said was ‘far more concerning’ and is ‘difficult for most people to comprehend’.

“It has been described as like Frankenstein science, maybe – that is one way of describing it but I don’t see it that way,” he said.

“But it is science, and all of us benefit from science one way or another.

“There are bad things which have happened and still will, but should that prevent us from harnessing the good because of the fear of the bad?

“That doesn’t really take us forward,” he said, answering his own question.

For most of Tony’s career in the commercial growing business, GM was either non-existent or in its infancy. But what the technology could offer has always been desired.

“Customers would come to me and say we want something earlier, later, bigger, fatter, wider, striped, better tasting, and I would say ‘yes’, ‘fine’, if you want to wait ten years then maybe we’ll have something better!

“GM can help, not always, but can help that to happen faster,” said Tony, before questioning: “Is it good? Is it bad?” This time he left his rhetorical questions hanging. But Tony is a realist, and regardless of morality, there will always be a commercial imperative to improve yields, flavour or the look of products.

The UK and the EU are losing their competitive edge and falling behind other global regions less constrained by ideological concerns about GM.

Frustrated how the GM debate has been closed down in recent times here, with consumers and the public often left ignorant and confused amidst the rival fanaticisms of global agribusinesses and environmental campaigners, Tony said: “We must remain open minded.

“We should take the trouble to be well-informed and therefore decisions should always be made on good solid information.

“ Unfortunately good solid information doesn’t always come to the fore - it is all too often manipulated or contrived,” he said.

Undoubtedly, there are significant issues with GM, but it is very hard to argue they only concern safety fears regarding GM products and their consumption by humans.

More pressing perhaps should be concerns regarding ecological contagion, as well as economic implications, since GM techniques and crops are subject to intellectual property laws.

“To say no to GM isn’t right, that’s just burying one’s head in the sand,” concluded Tony.

“But just saying there is no problem at all is also wrong,” he added. “There’s been improvement in what we do as mankind forever.

“GM is part of development and progress, ending up with plants that are more resistant to pests, diseases, drought and high/low temperatures.

“Also requiring less fertilizers and harmful chemicals and in doing so, exerting less pressure on the environment.

“Let’s not forget that many materials and minerals are being used up at an unsustainable rate.

“We just have to produce more of what we want or need while reducing inputs.”

Tony did state that the alternative would be to initiate global population control, reducing mankind’s numbers to a lower more sustainable rate of increase. But this is an issue even more fraught with moral, environmental and existential issues than the genetic modification debate.

Returning to the topic of conversation and genetic engineering’s potential to solve issues we face, Tony said: “It is fascinating, and it can also be frightening if people are frightened of the unknown.

“Other people get hugely excited by the unknown.

“What I certainly know of it now is nothing compared to the possibilities which there may be coming down the line in the future.

“Is it good? Is it bad? I will leave that for others to judge.”