Page 9 - the NOISE January 2016

newSyearinreview
review by cinDy cole
looking back on 2015, it’s a little hard to know whether we’ve made any progress forward as a society. But it’s certain that, as a people, we haven’t given up! From increasing public awareness on the harmfulness of genetically modified organisms in our food supply to more localized efforts to stop smart meter installations from being forced on consumers and calling on the United States Forest Service to obey federal law, we’ve certainly had at least a little forward motion, even if it’s only in baby steps.
gMoS — Still SwiMMing uPStreaM...
On the GMO front, 2015 saw a lot of action calling the public to question the safety of our food supply and also the chemical substances used in production. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass a law requiring the labeling of GMO containing foods. The Vermont stat- ute requires all foods sold in the state that contain GMOs be labeled as such by June 1, 2016. Vermont’s law also bans the use of words like “natural” and “all natural” on foods that contain any amount of GMO ingredients.
Action in the new england state followed devastating defeats of similar legislation in both California and washington. The anti-labeling campaigns in those states were heavily funded by corporate food production and agro-chemical companies like General Mills and Monsanto. Under the guise of the Grocery Manufacturers association, those same companies have been locked in a lawsuit with Vermont to try and prevent the 2014 law from taking effect this year. In the meantime, there are currently 64 countries that have passed laws to require GMO food label- ing including Australia, Germany, spain, France, Brazil, Peru and even Russia and China.
some Us companies decided to take matters into their own hands and have taken mea- sures to reduce and even eliminate GMO ingredients from their products. For example, popular chain restaurant chipotle announced its “G-M-Over It!” campaign early last year and began sourcing non-GMO corn and soy for its offerings. panera Bread followed shortly after with a list of 150 food additives that it would eliminate from its products this year. while the list did not specifically address the removal of GMOs, several of the additives on the company’s list come primarily from GMO sources such as high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated oils, and hydrolyzed soy and corn protein.
Then in July, the Us House of Representatives passed HR 1599, the Safe & accurate Food La- beling act of 2015. The legislation, branded by anti-GMO activists as the “DARK” Act or “Deny Americans the Right to Know,” is being touted as a way to end the “confusing patchwork” of state and local laws addressing GMO labeling and production. The bill claims to be a labeling solution but its provisions are completely voluntary and would not force food manufacturers to divulge the GMO status of their products.
why so much debate over a simple thing like labeling food? we already require foods to be labeled to name ingredients and disclose nutritional values. Foods can also be “certified organic” and be labeled as such to give the consumer some additional information on how the food was raised. There was even a time that the companies who created GMO foods actually wanted them labeled. what’s changed? well, lots of things really.
People in the Us have been questioning the quality of our food supply for several reasons in recent years. we hear every day about the decline in our overall health. Obesity and Alzheim- er’s disease are on the rise, autoimmune disorders are everywhere, and autism now affects 1 in 68 children — up from 1 in 150 just a few years ago.
we don’t really know what is causing all of these problems but the food we eat has certainly been called into question. And more and more consumers are demanding organic, gluten free and other perceivably more healthful options at the supermarket. even the world’s fast food giant McDonald’s is feeling the change. In 2015, for the first time since 1970, McDonald’s closed more restaurants than it opened in the Us, according to the Associated Press.
Many have become convinced that GMOs are at least one culprit in our rapidly declining health and well-being. so now the big food companies and the chemical giants are afraid that having to label GMO foods will be like putting a skull and crossbones on their packaging and that consum- ers will avoid foods with a “contains GMOs” label on them. so isn’t the bigger question why they aren’t making adjustments to meet consumer demands? And why is keeping customers “in the dark” regarding GMO content preferable to providing real answers as to the safety of these foods?
It seems we may never get beyond the adolescent name-calling stage on this issue. Propo- nents of GMOs claim to have science on their side and a desire to help humanity by making food easier and cheaper to cultivate, especially in more disadvantaged parts of the world. They often vocally discount the credibility of their critics and point to numerous scientific studies that support the safety of GMO foods.
Anti-GMO activists point out that most of the studies held up by the other side were funded by the very companies that have a vested interest is proving GMOs safe, even if they aren’t. some argue for the purity of our food supply and question the logic of interfering with nature’s already perfect creations. In particular, the idea of combining the genes of say, an apple, with those of something not an apple, like a virus, bacteria, or other organism just leaves — pardon the pun — a bad taste in the mouth.
But any time a scientist produces evidence that questions the safety of GMOs, the resulting attack from the other side serves to keep the results out of the public spotlight. A 2013 Scientif- ic American article entitled “The Truth About Genetically Modified Food” noted Alzheimer’s re- searcher David Schubert’s charge that “researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions.” so how is the public to ever really know what the truth is?
while the fight over labeling continues, Monsanto is being sued in new York, Delaware, and California by plaintiffs that claim their non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a form of cancer, was caused by the chemical glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide.
Incredibly, in light of all of this conflicting information, the Food & Drug administration just approved the first GMO animal for sale at the end of 2015. Though it will be about two years be- fore aquaadvantage salmon will reach grocery store freezers, it seems a big step backward for anti-GMO activists and for consumers who just want to know what’s really on the dinner plate.
>> continued on page 14 >>
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • january 2016 • 9