Page 10 - the NOISE March 2014

If you haven’t already started to read the la- bels on your packaged food more carefully and be more selective about which brands of food you put in your grocery cart, you may want to start now. Consumer demands for truth in labeling of genetically modified (GMO) foods is being met with resistance from major grocery food manufacturers and others in the supply chain of processed foods to the tune of millions of dollars and lots of political muscle. From legislation to keep individual states from passing their own labeling laws to fighting the ones that already have, corporate agriculture and its friends are ready to go to war.
GMOs are created when genes from the DNA of one species are injected into the DNA of another species. The transferred genes can come from plants, animals, bacte- ria, viruses, and even human beings. In some cases genes from animals are spliced with those from plants which are then grown as food. Collectively, these practices are known as biotechnology or Genetic Engineering (GE). There is no precedent for this process of extracting genetic material from one spe- cies, manipulating it as a chemical, and then putting it back into a living organism. The GMO species created by these processes may be unstable and cannot be created by traditional crossbreeding practices. GMOs began to show up in our food supply start- ing in 1994.
Consumer outcry over GMO foods has been increasing as more and more people have become aware of the extensive use of biotechnology in the world’s food supply. There are currently 64 countries that require GMO food labeling, including Australia, Ger- many, Spain, France, Brazil, Peru and even Russia and China. Some countries and/or regions have even banned the cultivation of GMOs. For example, Mexico has banned the planting of GMO corn through a suspension imposed by a Mexico City judge.
But the US still has no national labeling requirements for GMO foods or restrictions on growing GMO crops. This has led to in- dividual states taking matters into their own hands. This process has been challenging for consumers as proponents of biotech foods have spent millions of dollars to defeat state
propositions. Now the Grocery Manufac- turers Association (GMA) is attempting to get federal labeling laws enacted under the guise of protecting the consumer, but their agenda to keep GMOs under wraps is hiding in plain sight.
In February, the GMA announced the for- mation of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF). In a press release, the new or- ganization announced that it was “launched to advocate for Congressional action on a federal GMO labeling solution.” It proclaims that “legislation [is] needed to protect con- sumers by eliminating confusion and ad- vancing food safety.”
Martin Barbre, President of the National Corn Growers, said, “American families de- serve safe, abundant and affordable food. And America’s farmers rely on this proven technology to protect crops from insects, weeds and drought, enabling us to deliver on that promise and to do so through sus- tainable means. A federal solution on GMO labeling will bolster consumer confidence in the safety of American food by reaffirming the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) role as the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing geneti- cally modified ingredients.”
In addition to National Corn Growers, CF- SAF members include the American Bever- age Association, American Bakers Association, National Restaurant Association, Pet Food Institute, Snack Food Institute, American Fro- zen Food Institute, and the Biotechnology In- dustry Association, just to name a few.
The newly formed coalition’s proposal to Congress includes provisions to “advance food safety” by requiring FDA review of new GMOs before they are introduced to the marketplace. The FDA would be “empow- ered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with an in- gredient derived from a GMO.” This provision implies that, once the FDA deems a GMO safe, no labeling would be required. Deter- mining food safety is already a role the FDA is supposed to play but so far in the realm of GMOs, it has not been able to act without political influence marring results.
for Responsible Technology (IRT ), lack of safety testing for GMOs that are already found in our food supply is only part of the problem. “The Food and Drug Administra- tion policy on genetically modified organ- isms (GMOs), released in 1992, falsely claims the agency had no information showing GM foods are substantially different. Thousands of secret memos later made public by a law- suit reveal just the opposite. FDA scientists repeatedly warned of possible allergies, tox- ins, new diseases, and nutritional problems; they urged long-term safety studies. But the FDA official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president, and now the US Food Safety Czar.”
“The FDA ignored their scientists, and doesn’t require a single safety test. Instead, companies such as Monsanto, which have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their other products, get to decide if their GMOs are safe for us to eat. And the superfi- cial studies they do conduct are widely criti- cized as rigged to avoid finding problems.” So the idea that the FDA should be responsi- ble for determining the safety of future GMO foods might seem like a good one but may in fact be counterproductive for consumers whose vested interest is in the health effects of their food, not its profitability.
The food industry proposal also includes provisions for informing consumers about GMOs through labeling — but only through voluntary labeling. The CFSAF proposal asks the FDA to “establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients so that consumers clearly understand their choices in the marketplace.” The CFSAF is afraid that mandatory labeling would be misleading and imply to consumers that GMO ingredi- ents are unsafe.
In 2000, the FDA announced that GMO la- beling would remain voluntary but no com- pany has ever stepped up to label their GMO ingredients. Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the GMA stated that “Our nation’s food safety and labeling laws should not be set by political campaigns or state and lo- cal legislatures, but by the FDA, the nation’s
foremost food safety agency.” The type of national standard the GMA is seeking would actually keep states from creating their own labeling requirements for GMOs. And the only time the FDA would mandate labeling under this proposal is if its own testing deter- mines a specific GMO food to be a health risk.
Since last year, 20 states have considered GMO labeling laws. Mandatory labeling ini- tiatives were on ballots in both California and Washington but were narrowly defeat- ed following aggressive multi-million dollar anti-labeling campaigns by agribusiness and the GMA. Alaska, Connecticut and Maine have all passed GMO labeling laws but only Alaska’s is currently in effect. Alaska has two laws specific to GMO salmon, which is not yet available to consumers. The first law is for mandatory labeling of GMO salmon. The second law passed by Alaskans opposes FDA approval of GMO salmon.
The laws in the two eastern states require that at least one bordering state pass a simi- lar law for its own to take effect. For Maine, that means its law will remain dormant until New Hampshire passes labeling legislation. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) estimates at least 30 states will consider GMO legisla- tion this year and says Oregon is already pre- paring a ballot initiative on the issue.
In Hawai’i, the Big Island and Kaua’i have passed GMO cultivation and pesticide use laws and Maui has introduced similar legis- lation. Kaua’i Ordinance 960 requires disclo- sure of the type and location of any geneti- cally engineered plants grown by farmers and also establishes pesticide buffer zones around schools, homes and hospitals and mandates disclosure of pesticide use.
The CFSAF claims that a patchwork of state laws would be confusing to consumers and could mean inconsistencies in labeling. Its own proposal would establish a federal standard and be clearer, says the food indus- try coalition. But labeling proponents point out the CFSAF is really looking to keep con- sumers in the dark and its proposal will con- tinue to allow GMO food components to go unlabeled. “If this proposal were to become law, it would make it impossible for any state to require labeling of GE foods, even if an overwhelming majority of its residents de-
NEWSFEATURE
In a brochure published by the Institute 10 • MARCH 2014 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us