Page 10 - The NOISE November 2015

GMO LABELING LAWS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION
STORY BY CINDY COLE PHOTO BY CALLIE LUEDEKER
Congress continues to consider limiting the ability of individual states to require manufacturers to label foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (HR 1599) was passed by the US House of Representatives in July. In October, the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry held its first hearing on biotechnology in ten years to consider the issue.
Primarily through the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the agro-science and corporate food industries have called for a “uniform national” food labeling standard for GMOs. The Grocery Manufacturers Association claims that a patchwork of local and state labeling laws will be too confusing and costly for consumers.
Anti-GMO activists claim that the legislation being considered will only limit consumers’ “right to know,” whether or not the food items they purchase contain GMO ingredients. Many refer to the House bill as, “The Monsanto Protection Act,” after the agro-chemical giant that is one of its main proponents and beneficiaries. The other name coined by the pro-labeling
community is the “DARK” Act − Deny Americans the Right to Know.
The legislation currently under consideration would void all labeling requirements at the
state level such as those that have already been enacted by Vermont. That states GMO labeling law is scheduled to take effect in July 2016. In addition, proposed federal law would prohibit any restrictions on the use of the label “natural,” on GMO containing foods and could also prevent states and local governments from banning or limiting the growth of GMO crops as has been done in several counties in California and Hawaii.
The Senate committee heard from two panels of witnesses that included representatives from the United States Department of Agriculture, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as those from private food growers and manufacturers. The panel was heavily weighted in favor of GMOs and their safety with the only dissenting testimony from Mr. Gary Hirshberg, Chairman and Co-Founder of Stonyfield Farm Inc., an organic yogurt company based in New Hampshire.
“This is the first time in 10 years this committee has held a hearing on agriculture biotechnology, a topic that is of utmost importance for producers in meeting the global food challenge,” announced Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS). “Science has come a long way in those 10 years, and we recognize those beneficial advances today.”
In his opening statement, Mr. Roberts stated, “We’ve seen too many examples in recent years where shortfalls in grain and other food items or increases in prices at the consumer level have helped to trigger outbreaks of civil unrest and protests in places like the Middle East and Africa. In light of these global security threats, today’s farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the demands at home and around the globe. At the same time, they are facing increased challenges to production, including: limited land and water resources, uncertain weather, and pest and disease issues. Over the past twenty years, agriculture biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner.”
Many food manufacturers in the non-organic sector have been calling for action by the federal government to continue to allow them to voluntarily label products with GMO ingredients. Critics point out that companies have not stepped up and done so on their own to advocate the need for mandatory labeling. Since the federal government has refused to act, states have stepped up but, so far, only Vermont has been successful in passing a law with a specific date of enactment. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and its members have stepped up their efforts to keep Vermont’s law from going into effect.
Sr. Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., Mr. Daryl E. Thomas testified, “At Herr’s it will be difficult for us to continue sales to the state of Vermont, although no final company decision has been made. If other states were to implement their own mandatory labeling laws, we would have to evaluate each state separately. These types of decisions are not easy for a mid-sized company such as ours to make. We are looking for ways to grow our business, not eliminate markets, but the cost and liability associated with the Vermont law are significant.”
Joanna Lidback of The Farm at Wheeler Mountain also testified. She and her husband run a small beef and grass-based dairy operation in Vermont. “I am disappointed that my home state of Vermont passed a mandatory GMO-labeling law that is set to take effect next year,” said Mrs. Lidback. “The main argument pushing for passage of this bill was this idea that consumers have a right to know what is in their food. In my opinion, the Vermont law does
10 • november 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
not offer anything to better inform consumers about what is in their food but instead serves as a warning. I find the law to be frustrating and full of contradictions. For example, it applies to packaged and processed foods, but not if they contain meat. Thus a can of vegetable soup would carry a label but that same soup with added meat would not. Food in restaurants is exempted, thus a pizza in a store might require a label but a delivery pizza would not. At this time, dairy is also exempted, but my worry is that over time these odd exclusions would fall away. Besides, I believe there are better uses of the state’s time and taxpayer resources than imposing regulations on a technology that has been used commercially and proven safe for over two decades.”
Other testimonies supporting GMO technology and safety claimed that consumer resistance and “right to know” demands are based in fear, not in science. A recent New York Times article entitled, ”With G.M.O. Policies, Europe Turns Against Science,” referred to the
17 European countries that have announced bans on the cultivation of GMO crops as the, “Coalition of the Ignorant.”
Sandwiched in between his pro-GMO contemporaries, Mr. Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm was tasked with representing the anti-GMO/pro-labeling aspects of the issue on his own. Printed copies of his testimony were stamped with the, “Just Label It!” logo and its, “We have the right to know,” tagline on every page. Mr. Hirshberg is Chairman of the GMO labeling advocacy group that includes businesses, farmers, and consumers. “Consumers have the right to know what is in their food and how it is grown − the same right held by citizens in 64 nations,” he said.
Knowing his audience, Mr. Hirshberg stressed his organization’s desire to provide labeling that would act only as disclosure, not as a decree on the safety or quality of GMOs. “We strongly support a national GMO disclosure system that provides factual information. We do not support a warning or a disclosure system that renders a judgment on GMOs. Rather, we support a value-neutral disclosure that respects the right of consumers to make their own choices,” he said.
“Consumers give many reasons for wanting these disclosures,” Mr. Hirshberg continued. “But chief among them is the extent to which GMO crops have increased the use of herbicides linked to serious health problems.” Last March, the World Health Organization declared glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, “Probably carcinogenic to humans.” Monsanto denies that this claim is based in scientific fact and is currently urging California legislators to reconsider adding glyphosate to the state’s Proposition 65 list of cancer- causing chemicals. If the state moves forward, Monsanto will be required to include a“clear and reasonable” warning label on any of its glyphosate containing products sold in CA.
Also in March a new book was published addressing the GMO debate from the scientific perspective labeling advocates are often accused of lacking. Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Druker argues that the science behind GMOs is not all it’s cracked up to be by the agro-chemical industry. Mr. Druker is a public interest attorney who, as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on GMO foods. The disclosed files revealed that politically appointed federal administrators covered up the warnings of their own scientists regarding the risks of GMOs.
“Contrary to the claims of its proponents, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has not been conducted in alignment with science but in significant conflict with sound scientific principles,” states Mr. Druker. “For instance, its purported safety was initially based on assumptions about the nature and dynamics of DNA that have been decisively discredited, and yet its advocates continue to assert its safety as if those assumptions are still somehow legitimate. Further, although a substantial number of well-conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected statistically significant harm to the laboratory animals that consumed genetically engineered (GE) food, the proponents either ignore or unjustly attack this evidence.”
The Grocery Manufacturers Association continues to pressure Congress to take immediate action on the labeling issue while implementation of Vermont’s labeling law looms on the not so distant horizon. But consumer advocates haven’t given up and grassroots efforts have certainly caught the attention of the agro-chemical industry. Additional hearings will likely be held before the Senate takes further action.
Mr. Druker will speak at Prescott College on November 13.
| Cindy Cole has a right to know if it’s GMO. cindycole@live.com
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • SEPTEMBER 2015 • 25 newsfeature