Page 10 - the NOISE March 2016

GMO/ MONSANTO UPDATE
STORY BY
CINDY COLE
SENATE USURPS VERMONT’S GMO LABELING LAW?
With Vermont’s mandatory Genetically Modified Organism labeling law looming on the horizon − scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2016 − the US Senate has introduced legislation similar to the House of Representatives’ HR 1599, the Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House last July. GMO labeling advocates have nicknamed that bill the DARK Act for “Deny Americans the Right to Know.” It has also been not-so-affectionately called “The Monsanto Protection Act.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) released draft legislation on February 19 that would block individual states from requiring GMO labeling and would instead create a voluntary federal labeling standard, similar to HR 1599. Members of the agro-chemical and food industries and organizations that represent them like the Grocery Manufacturers Association argue that a patchwork of state-based labeling requirements is too confusing and will lead to increased costs for consumers. GMO labeling advocates anticipate that a voluntary federal standard will simply allow companies to continue the status quo of hiding GMOs in products and choosing not to label their presence.
A critical aspect of the proposed Senate legislation is that “no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement for a food that is the subject of the bioengineered food labeling standard under this section that is not identical to that voluntary standard.”
The Senate bill also includes provisions for an “education” campaign asking the US Secretary of Agriculture to “provide science-based information, including any information on the environmental, nutritional, economic, and humanitarian benefits of agricultural biotechnology, through education, outreach, and promotion to address consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.”
“It’s outrageous that some lawmakers in the Senate continue to ignore the wishes of nine out of 10 Americans,” said Colin O’Neil, Agriculture Policy Director for the Environmental Working Group. “The version of the DARK Act that has been introduced by Chairman Roberts would rob Americans of their right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown. We continue to hope that thoughtful food companies like Campbell’s will work with consumer groups to craft a non- judgmental GMO disclosure to put on the back of food packaging. Americans should have the same right as citizens of 64 other countries to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.”
Many food manufacturers continue to claim that labeling GMOs will cost the average family more than $500 a year in additional grocery costs based largely on a widely discredited study out of Cornell University which was produced to oppose pro-labeling legislation in New York. The Corn Refiners Association − an organization that represents the makers of high fructose corn syrup and other products derived primarily from GMO corn − claims that figure could be over $1000 per family over time. But several other studies, including one by economists at the US Department of Agriculture, have shown these claims to be false. The USDA study determined that GMO labeling would have little to no effect on consumer purchases and that cost and calorie content have a greater impact on spending decisions.
After considering the Cornell study, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave the report three Pinocchios on its rating scale − meaning “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions” or “mostly false.” The analysis states: “It is an exaggeration to use the $500-per-family figure from the New York labeling bill in the national GMO debate. Those who oppose mandatory labeling are making the assumption that companies will switch out all GMO ingredients, produce completely new products, and then pass on all the costs of stocking, warehousing and producing those products to consumers. There may, indeed, be increased competition for companies to switch to non-GMO ingredients. But there are many other factors that affect wholesale or retail prices than just the cost of ingredients.”
In the meantime, Vermont is moving forward in preparation for the July 1 enactment date of its GMO labeling law. In January, Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell announced the organizations that will be authorized to test and authorize GMO-free claims for foods entering the state. The Non-GMO Project and NSF International will be tasked with verifying the GMO content, or lack thereof, for foods to apply the state’s mandatory labeling law. There are some concerns that a backlog of applications will occur with the deadline for implementation of Vermont’s law less than six months away. Swift application of the labeling law will also require cooperation of all manufacturers in the supply chain of each product. But the ball is definitely rolling on Vermont’s GMO labeling initiative with little regard for the looming threat of federal attempts to stop it.
10 • MARCH 2016 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
STILL NOT GM’OVER IT’ IN WASHINGTON
Back in 2013, the state of Washington considered Initiative 522 which, similarly to Vermont’s new law, would have required labeling of all food products sold in the state containing GMOs. The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association launched the “No on 522” campaign and poured money into the state in opposition to the initiative. I-522 was defeated by a narrow margin. The “No on 522” movement spent $22 million to kill the initiative − $11 million of that came from the GMA.
Late in the campaign, Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the GMA accusing them of violating the state’s disclosure laws. Funding for the “No on 522” campaign was listed only as coming from the GMA and did not make reference to the companies that contributed to the organization’s war chest. The State of Washington is now suing the GMA for $14 million.
Just weeks before I-522 was voted on, the GMA released a list of companies that had contributed to its “Defense of Brand Strategic Accounts” fund. The top five contributions were made by PepsiCo ($1.7 million), Nestlé USA ($1.1 million), General Mills ($646,000), Coca-Cola ($565,000) and ConAgra ($308,000). Other companies in the top ten include Kellogg, Hershey, and Campbell Soup. In January, Campbell’s announced that it would no longer be contributing to the GMA’s anti-labeling efforts and that it would voluntarily begin labeling its own products for the presence of GMOs.
But the Washington AG says those revelations were too little, too late. Documents released in February revealed the extensive planning behind the “No on 522” campaign, including instructions the GMA gave to its member companies to deny contributing to the anti-labeling efforts if directly asked. In a February 19 filing, Mr. Ferguson characterized the GMA’s actions as
“so egregious that it ranks amongst the worst in state history.”
GLYPHOSATE AND OTHER TROUBLES FOR MONSANTO
Glyphosate − the main ingredient in Monsanto’s well-known herbicide “Roundup” − was declared “probably carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization in March 2015. Last September, California became the first state to add the chemical to its list of “known carcinogens” under California Proposition 65 and compel products containing it be labeled with a cancer warning. This law requires the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to publish a list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive damage.
Monsanto has long maintained glyphosate and its flagship product Roundup are perfectly safe. Immediately following the publication of the IARC report, the company demanded its retraction. Now it’s taking that demand a step further and suing California’s OEHHA to prevent its key chemical ingredient from being added to the Prop 65 list.
In the lawsuit, Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al, (case number 16-CECG-00183 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno), the agro-chemical giant claims that “numerous regulatory agencies and independent scientists have evaluated glyphosate over the course of its more than forty years of use and have concluded that glyphosate does not present a carcinogenic risk to humans.” Monsanto includes the OEHHA among those agencies based on its own findings in 1997 and 2007.
In addition, the suit argues that adding glyphosate to the Prop 65 list based on the IARC classification in this matter is “delegating law-making authority to an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body”with no oversight from state or federal authorities. Monsanto contends that this violates the company’s right to due process.
Since the release of the IARC report, Monsanto has found itself the defendant in a mounting number of cases around the country where plaintiffs are claiming their illnesses were caused by exposure to Roundup and glyphosate. The suits have been filed by farm workers, landscapers and a horticultural assistant, to name a few. The legal challenges point out that glyphosate was originally classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as “possibly carcinogenic” but that the agency changed that determination under pressure from Monsanto, allowing the company to embark on widespread use of the chemical.
| Cindy Cole prefers a natural kind of weed management. cindy@thenoise.us NEWSBRIEFS