Page 10 - the NOISE December 2013

The RighT
To Know
gMos:
will aRizona TaKe The lead?
You’ve heard the expression ‘you are what you eat.’ Well, what if you don’t know what’s in the food you eat? What does that
make you?
This is the problem with Genetically Modi-
fied Organisms – or GMOs – that have found their way into our food supply in increasing quantities since the 1990s. Today, instead of sitting down to breakfast with food picked from your garden or grown by a neighbor, chemical companies like Monsanto, Du- pont, Syngenta, Mycogen Seeds, Cargill, Dow Agro-Science, and BASF Plant Sci- ence are your dining guests. Only you won’t know it because there are currently no la- beling requirements for GMO foods in the United States.
People have been trying to change that but it has been slow going due to the big money behind the products that would re- quire labeling. Companies like Coca-Cola, General Mills, Pepsi, Frito-Lay, and even more natural sounding brands like Nature Valley and Morningstar all use GMO ingre- dients in their products that they don’t want you to know about. Several states have tried to pass legislation that would require prod- ucts containing GMO ingredients be labeled as such but so far, only Hawaii has made any real headway on the issue.
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 formed by traditional crossbreeding practices.
The Center for Food Safety names the “Big 5” in GMO foods as corn, soybeans, canola, cottonseed, and sugar beets. These ingredi- ents are found primarily in processed foods and can be included as ingredients in various forms. For example, GMO corn is commonly found as high fructose corn syrup and sweet- eners labeled as fructose, dextrose, and glu-
bY CindY Cole
cose. If you see sugar listed in the ingredi- ents of your favorite packaged food product, it is likely from GMO sugar beets. Only if it’s labeled 100% cane sugar can you be sure that it’s not from GMO beets.
According to recent reports from the Unit- ed States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in the US, 93% of soybeans, 94% of cotton (found in food as cottonseed oil), 90% of canola (also known as rapeseed), 88% of corn and 75% of Hawaiian papaya come from GMO sources. In fact, unless a food is certified and labeled “100% Organic,” there is a significant chance it contains some GMO ingredients.
Two recent independent and peer-re- viewed studies out of France and the United Kingdom (UK) have found strong evidence of the dangers of GMO foods. The UK study found rats who consumed even a small amount of Monsanto’s Roundup herbi- cide or “Roundup Ready” maize (corn ge- netically modified to resist application of the Roundup herbicide) developed mammary tumors and suffered kidney and liver damage. Female animals were particu- larly affected. The French study also found that animals given water containing small amounts of Roundup perished sooner than those not exposed to the chemical. Both studies used amounts of the GMO ingre- dients considered “safe” by Monsanto and permitted by the laws of the United States. These studies were also conducted over the lifetime of the rats, which is approximately two years as opposed to other industry- sponsored studies that have never gone be- yond ninety days.
Monsanto argues these studies are not valid as humans would have to consume large amounts of GMO foods to see the same results. However, without labeling, is it possible for us to know how much we are eating? Monsanto insists that’s not really im- portant because their products are perfectly safe anyway.
Monsanto has stated “there is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods – the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.”
So, according to the agricultural giant, DNA is DNA – it doesn’t matter if it comes from plants, humans, animals, or viruses. How- ever, other studies have shown that DNA from GMOs does not properly break down in the human intestines and can actually alter and damage the DNA of the friendly bacteria found there.
Sixty-four countries around the world (up from 50 in 2012) already require the labeling of GMO foods including all of Europe, India,
Japan, and even China. In October, Mexico – the birthplace of agricultural corn – banned the planting of GMO corn through a suspen- sion imposed by a Mexico City judge. But here in the US, GMO crops are freely grown and there are no requirements for identify- ing GMO ingredients in any foods.
Change is in the air, however. Twenty-six state legislatures have introduced GMO re- lated bills in recent years, including Arizona. And voters in a few states have attempted to take matters into their own hands by getting initiatives requiring GMO labeling or restrict- ing GMOs in some other way on their ballots. However, success at passing GMO labeling laws at the state level has been limited so far.
In November 2012, California voters were presented with Proposition 37: The Califor- nia Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. It would have required that all foods sold in the state be labeled as part of the ingredient and nutritional information to let consumers know whether they contain GMOs. Following a multi-million dollar “No on 37” campaign sponsored by companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Kellogg’s, Kraft, and Nestle, the measure was defeated by a vote of 51.4% to 48.6%. Pro-labeling companies donated more than $5.5 million to help get Prop 37 approved. But Monsanto alone gave over $7.1 million to defeat it. The “No on 37” campaign topped out at over $46 million.
This November, voters in Washington con- sidered Initiative 522: The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (I- 522). The initiative “would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced us- ing genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.” More than 350,000 Washingtonians put their signatures on the petition to get the initiative on the ballot.
Unfortunately, of the more than 980,000 ballots counted, only 45% were in favor of I-522. And, once again, big agriculture and corporate biotech and junk food companies contributed millions to guarantee the mea- sure’s defeat.
However, a victory for labeling proponents still occurred with this vote. In the weeks prior to election day, the Grocery Manufac- turer’s Association (GMA) – the major finan- cial contributor to the “No on 522” campaign
– was sued by Washington’s Attorney General. According to the complaint, it was re-
vealed that the GMA had begun planning their attack on I-522 in December 2012, fol- lowing the defeat of Prop 37 in California. In the “No on 37” campaign, donors contribut- ed funds individually. The plan for Washing- ton was to create a joint fund – the Defense of Brand Strategic Account – to which donors could give their millions without revealing their individual corporate identities. Most of the money contributed to defeat I-522 came from the GMA through this fund.
Washington Attorney General Bob Fergu- son accused the GMA of money laundering and violating the state’s campaign disclosure laws. Just days before votes were counted, the GMA was forced to reveal the list of con- tributors to their campaign fund. PepsiCo, Nestle USA and Coca-Cola topped the list with contributions in excess of $1 million each. Unafraid of consumer backlash, Monsanto openly contributed more than $5 million, with DuPont close behind at over $3.4 million. Only about $600 of the more than $22 million spent came from within Washington.
A few companies like Kraft and Mars de- cided against contributing to the anti-la- beling efforts in Washington after suffering criticism from consumers around the coun- try who chastised their efforts in California last year. The GMA still faces legal action and may end up paying penalties, damages, and investigation and legal fees for their at- tempted trickery.
Labeling and disclosure proponents in Washington are down but not out. They have vowed to return in 2016 with another ballot initiative hoping that a presidential election year will bring out more voters to get the measure passed.
Hawaii is another state that has taken ac- tion on GMOs and there they’ve shown that
10 • DECEMBER 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
NEWSfeaTuRe