Author Archives: Mollie

The Davis rally was in solidarity with a grassroots attempt to shut down Monsanto offices across the globe. Locally, it worked: After catching wind of the planned demonstration, Monsanto employees were directed to avoid work on Friday.

And if the two-day rally is any indicator of a greater phenomenon, as activist Pamm Larry suggested, it’s that there’s an increasing awareness in the country about food production and safety.

The measure, if passed, would require that any food containing genetically engineered ingredients have a label indicating that the product was derived from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It would also mandate that foods cannot be labeled “natural” if they have been processed in any way (i.e., canned, cooked, frozen, fermented, etc.).

“People don’t have time to take a college course on what is and isn’t labeled,” she says.

Genetically engineered foods, according to the initiative, are foods in which the genetic makeup has been altered through vitro nucleic acid techniques, cell fusion or hybridization techniques that don’t occur naturally. This includes foods that are genetically engineered to be resistant to pesticides in order to increase crop yields, such as the controversial corn variety created by Dow Chemical that is resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D.

While this initiative will not ban genetically engineered foods, it will allow consumers to make a choice whether or not to buy these foods, Larry says. And, while she did not provide any numbers, she is confident the act will garner enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Meanwhile, a committee called Stop the Costly Food Labeling Initiative has cropped up to oppose the ballot-measure effort. This group is backed by the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Seed Association, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association and the Council for Biotechnology Information.

The committee cites an analysis released by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, which estimates that regulation of the measure could cost up to $1 million annually. The LAO further predicts a cost burden for the courts to pursue violations.

The committee also emphasizes the fact that the FDA and medical experts have deemed genetically engineered foods safe for consumption.

But Dr. Glayol Sahba, volunteer signature gatherer and Sacramento family physician, noted that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods in 2009, concluding that “GM foods pose a serious health risk.”

The academy cites several animal studies that have shown health risks related to GMO consumption, including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

“Transgenic foods have only been around 10 years,” Sahba said. “We need to not expose people [to these foods] when we are not sure of the consequences to people and the environment.”

According to a statewide poll conducted by EMC Research in June of last year, 81 percent of California voters said they would support an initiative that required GMO foods to be labeled. The push for GMO labeling is also gaining momentum around the country; as many as 14 states have attempted to pursue similar measures, including Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Vermont.

Last week, 55 members of Congress signed off on a bicameral letter to the FDA in support of a petition filed by the Center for Food Safety advocating GMO labeling.

Consumers want to see a change in the food system, Larry says, and are demanding transparency.

“People are fired up,” she says. “Many of us in the country have felt powerless for a long time, [but] when we unite we can get something done.”

A Vermont bill seeks to label genetically modified foods
By Corin Hirsch
03.14.12
Full Article

The label on your corn oil or cereal or tortilla chips reads “pure, 100 percent natural” or “all natural” — but what does that mean?

According to federal rules, not much. There may be traces of genetically modified soy, corn, potatoes or other crops inside. The word “natural” conveys only that a food contains no added color, artificial flavors or additives. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, get a free pass. And, since the word “natural” still has a powerful pull for consumers, its use and abuse aren’t limited to corporate giants such as ConAgra. Food items from companies as seemingly crunchy as Kashi (owned by Kellogg’s) and Barbara’s Bakery have also been fingered for harboring GMOs.

The state of Vermont has more stringent rules on misbranding than the federal ones, and those are at the heart of the bold bill H.722, aka the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. Introduced in February by Rep. Kate Webb (D-Shelburne), it would require all foods that contain GMOs to say so on their packages.

“Vermonters care about food, and Vermonters care about choice. Choice is what this bill is about,” writes Webb in an email. “With this bill, the word ‘naturally’ would actually mean something.”

This is not the first time a state has sought to label foods containing GMOs. With 93 percent of Americans supporting such labels, according to an ABC News poll, 17 states are considering bills to do just that. Supporters in California are gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures to bring the measure to a ballot this fall, and a national campaign called Just Label It aims to collect a million comments to send to the Food and Drug Administration urging it to label GMOs.

This groundswell of support feels decidedly retro, at least in the global context. The European Union began requiring GMO labeling in 2004. Fifty nations do the same, and the United States and Canada are the only developed countries that don’t regulate such identification.

“It’s just one more example of how we’re really behind the curve of where the world is going,” says Andrea Stander, director of Rural Vermont, one of the organizations that cowrote Vermont’s bill, along with the Northeast Organic Farming Association and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “So many people are excited about this, because we can draw a line in the sand and say, ‘Enough. We want to know,’” she adds.

According to various estimates, a staggering 60 to 80 percent of all foods on grocery shelves contain genetically engineered components, yet the FDA has shied away from requiring GMO labels. The feds claim they hinder free trade and that no research definitively proves GMOs harm human health.

Despite this opposition, Vermont’s strong stance on accurate labeling could carry H.722 into state law. “As this bill is based on Vermont’s misbranding statutes, it is more likely to survive a challenge in federal court,” says David Rogers, NOFA’s policy adviser. “In the past, labeling bills have been challenged because they might violate the commercial clause of the Constitution. Misbranding statutes are a purview of the states.”

Rogers theorizes that no state has yet successfully passed a GMO labeling law because of the enormous sway of food-industry giants. To counter their clout, Vermont’s 16-page bill draws strength from detailed legalese — it goes as far as defining enzymes, organisms, genetic engineering and “in vitro nucleic acid techniques.”

“Someone has to lead, and Vermont has led before in a number of areas,” says Rogers.

After the EU changed its labeling law in 2004, many consumers stopped buying foods with GMOs, forcing companies to abandon those crops, as well. Here on American soil, the prospect that ConAgra or Frito-Lay might need to relabel all its products to sell them in a tiny state seems almost surreal. Stander points out that, if the bill passes, producers will have just until 2014 to comply.

“If the bill passes into law, we are almost guaranteed a lawsuit from the big food businesses, declaring the new law violates the FDA nutrition-labeling law,” says Rep. Webb. “We believe it does not.”

Stander says she’s been surprised by the intense support of Vermonters in this effort. “In the kinds of issues we work on, there is always a certain amount of controversy,” she says. “[The bill] just seems to be pretty strongly in favor of the very simple, basic right to know.”

H.722 needs to move out of the ag committee by this Friday to “cross over” and continue its passage toward law. And if it doesn’t? “There is always next year,” says Webb. “Or the year after that. Or the year after that.”

“The ag committee in our state has the opportunity to be really bold and respond to the overwhelming public support for this and move this bill forward. That’s all they have to do — move it forward,” says Stander. “We have people lined up to testify who have expertise. We just want the chance to do it.”