5 Things Monsanto Doesn't Want You to Know About the GMO Labeling Debate
Last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made history when the federal agency approved the first genetically modified (GMO) animal for human consumption: AquaBounty Technologies' GMO salmon. The controversial move has since opened floodgates about the future of food.
Whatever side of the fence you're on about this fish—which has been genetically altered to grow to market size twice as fast as wild salmon—you'll have no idea you're eating it anyway. The FDA has not required the product to carry a label.
NYT editorial board in favor of GMO labeling: Tell Consumers What They Are Eating https://t.co/39K00A5Tah https://t.co/mLr7Z1IWcP— Civil Eats (@Civil Eats)1448996436.0
As the controversy of GMO labeling enters mainstream dialogue, this issue is quickly becoming a heated one. Here are the big five facts you need to know about the current standings of the debate:
1. The majority of the American public wants a label.
According to a new poll of 800 registered voters commissioned by a coalition of consumer and environmental groups—including Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports—nearly 90 percent of Americans want mandatory labeling on genetically modified foods.
This is compounded by Tuesday's New York Times editorial board in reaction to the FDA's approval of GMO salmon. In a significant reversal of opinion from the newspaper's 2013 editorial board, the board advocated for a label and stated, "consumers deserve to know what they are eating."
"The FDA said there is no reason to mandate labeling because there is no material difference between engineered and natural fish on qualities like nutritional content. But the value of that information should be left to consumers to decide," the board wrote.
Still, it seems consumer concern has fallen on the FDA's deaf ears. After the approval of the fish, the Center for Food Safety announced plans to sue the FDA and submitted a citizen petition requiring GMO foods be labeled. The FDA rejected the petition and stated, "While we appreciate consumer interest in the labeling of food derived from genetically engineered plants, consumer interest alone does not provide a sufficient basis to require labeling disclosing whether a food has been produced with or without the use of such genetic engineering."
2. Monsanto and Big Food are trying very hard to stop state-wide labeling.
Another hurdle in GMO labeling comes from the food industry itself. GMO food is nearly ubiquitous in American diets. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—the world's largest trade association for 300 major food and beverage companies such as Coca-Cola, Nestle and ConAgra—says that GMOs have been around for the past 20 years, and today, 70-80 percent of foods in the U.S. contain ingredients that have been genetically modified.
Even though several states such as Vermont have passed laws requiring the labeling of GMOs, the GMA has spent millions and and heavily lobbied to block state labeling mandates. Their concern, basically, is that it will be too expensive and complicated for food companies to make a special label for Vermont but not for the other 49 states.
"A deep concern is that we'll end up with a patchwork quilt of state-by-state regulations where you'll end up in a place where you can't move a can of soup from one state to the other," Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant told CBS News in a new interview.
RT @EcoWatch: Mark Ruffalo: 'Monsanto Chief is Horrible' https://t.co/DaUSHm3RTC #Monsanto #gmo— GMWatch (@GMWatch)1449246281.0
Grant also said that the cost of the labels would be passed onto the consumer: "The consumer is going to end up paying four or five hundred dollars more a year on their grocery bills."
No other company has been more intertwined with the GMO debate than Monsanto, the genetically modified seed giant and producer of Roundup, an herbicide that's sprayed on "Roundup Ready" crops all over the world.
Read page 1
Grant said that states' adoption of mandatory GMO labels results in "confusion" and "more expenses" rather than transparency. Instead, he favors federal labeling requirements that's similar to the labels you see on organic foods, CBS News reported.
CEO Hugh Grant appeared on @CBSThisMorning to talk about having more dialogue w/ consumers, #labeling and #GMOs: https://t.co/nRVmRFSu6h— Monsanto Company (@Monsanto Company)1449077353.0
3. A federal law could ban state labeling laws completely.
It’s unclear if we’ll will ever see labels for genetically altered food, period—not just for GMO salmon. The hotly contested Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, dubbed by opponents as the Denying Americans the Right to Know Act or DARK Act, currently languishes in the Senate.
The act, H.R. 1599, which passed the House of Representatives in July, bans states from issuing mandatory labeling laws for foods containing GMOs. The bill gives the FDA the authority to establish national standards and regulations for GMO food. The Department of Agriculture would be granted full discretion over the law’s implementation.
The unsaid deadline for the Senate version is sometime before July 2016, when Vermont's GMO labeling law takes effect. As EcoWatch reported exclusively in October, Big Food is already making some preparations in anticipation of Vermont's labeling law whether or not they are successful in blocking it.
Still, the New York Times editorial pointed out that "industry groups are pressing the Senate to attach similar language as a rider to an omnibus spending bill," but added that "the Senate should rebuff that tactic and allow states to adopt mandatory labeling laws if they wish."
4. What about QR codes?
Some politicians and food industry members have advocated for a QR code as a good alternative to GMO labeling. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that QR codes are a way to provide consumers with the information they’re asking for without signaling there is anything wrong with a product.
This idea however has been met with backlash from several consumer groups. “Not everyone has a smartphone or lives in an area with reliable Internet service,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union. "And even for those who do, it’s inconvenient to have to scan every food you put into your grocery cart.”
A new national poll by the Mellman Group has these key findings:
- Almost nine in 10 (88 percent) would prefer a printed GMO label on the food package rather than use a smartphone app to scan a bar code.
- Just 17 percent say they have ever scanned a bar code to get information and only 16 percent say they have ever scanned a QR code.
- If bar codes were used, more than 80 percent say food companies should not be allowed to use the app to gather information about shoppers.
NEW POLL: 88% of Americans prefer on-package GE label over smartphone app to scan a barcode https://t.co/aTmxX9vMLD https://t.co/QCaPm3P77e— Center 4 Food Safety (@Center 4 Food Safety)1449078645.0
5. This GMO food fight isn't really about the labels.
By the year 2050, the Earth’s population will reach more than 9 billion people. With so many mouths to feed, the food industry argues that GMOs are the answer to global food security, since these plants have been spliced and diced to resist herbicides and pesticides and theoretically yield more crops.
But that's ignoring the fact that the two most widely planted crops in the U.S.—GMO corn and GMO soybeans—are constantly blanketed by chemicals. The U.S. Geological Survey found that farmers have sprayed 2.6 billion pounds of Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide on U.S. agricultural land between 1992 and 2012. Not only that, Monsanto's Roundup has been linked to a whole spate of health problems and was infamously classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization’s France-based cancer research arm in March.
The health impacts of glyphosate is still maddeningly unsettled. Last month, the European Food Safety Authority rejected the IARC's classification of glyphosate as a possible carcinogen. Now, DW reports that nearly 100 scientists from around the world have published an open letter calling on the European Commission "to disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate," and for a "transparent, open and credible review of the scientific literature."
As for GMO animal products, while AquaBounty says that their fish safe to eat and the production of it would put less of a strain on wild and farmed salmon populations, there are a variety of other factors to consider. The FDA’s decision "disregards AquaBounty’s disastrous environmental record, which greatly raises the stakes for an environmentally damaging escape of GMO salmon," Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch, wrote. "In recent years, AquaBounty facilities outside the U.S. have dealt with an accidental disease outbreak, an accident that lead to 'lost' salmon, and a $9,500 fine from Panamanian regulators who found the company in breach of that country’s environmental laws."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
'These Aren't Wildfires'<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p>
<div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>
How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>
Words That Reflect the Science<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>
Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.
If you are taking medication for an underactive thyroid, check your prescription.