The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
8 Battleground States in the GMO Food Labeling Fight
As the food fight over the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stalls in Congress, state-level GMO mandates are gaining steam. At least 30 states have introduced some type of legislation in recent years, including three states—Connecticut, Maine and Vermont—that have actually passed GMO labeling mandates.
With the food transparency movement escalating nationwide, there are at least eight states to keep on our radar, according to Politico's Morning Agriculture blog.
64 other countries around the world and 89 percent of Americans voters are in support of it. Photo credit: Flickr
1. New York
Legislators have introduced nearly 70 bills since 2011 related to GMOs. The bills cover everything from the labeling of vaccines containing GMOs to prohibiting the sale of GMO salmon to the labeling food and seeds.
Last week, lawmakers debated a bill that would free the state from its 2014 law that requires four contiguous states—Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut—to also enact label laws before triggering their own.
“We want to remove the contingencies to free Maine to act on its own,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Michelle Dunphy (D-Old Town) told the Bangor Daily News. “Consumers have the right to choose. I don’t feel it will have a huge impact on how people shop.”
The bill was tabled and will resurface in a work session later this legislative session.
A bill was introduced last September that would require that all foods sold in the state containing GMOs be clearly labeled. According to MA Right to Know, 155 out of 200 state legislators, including 126 from the House of Representatives and 29 from the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors to the labeling bill in 2015. The bill is currently sitting with the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture.
4. Rhode Island
Lawmakers are considering at least three bills that would require GMO foods to be labeled. Politico reports that the first bill requires all food businesses with more than $500,000 of gross sales to post signs informing consumers of GMO food products unless it is already labeled. The second measure requires milk and milk products from genetically engineered animals or that contain a GMO ingredient to carry a label. The third measure would require all GMO products be labeled by Jan. 1, 2017.
Following years of grassroots campaigning, state Senator Maria Sachs and state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda have introduced three GMO labeling bills in Florida: Senate bills SB 1700 and SB 1708, and House bill HB 1369, Natural Society reported. The bills require labeling of GMO foods and raw agricultural commodities, and require the state to provide lists of raw agricultural commodities at high risk or potentially at risk for cultivation in a genetically engineered form. The two have campaigned heavily for GMO labeling for the past three years. Here's a video of Senator Sachs at an anti-Monsanto rally in Miami in March 2013.
The state already requires the labeling of GMO salmon, and now the state is weighing a measure that would ban the sale of any GMO fish or fish product in the state and another resolution that would disapprove of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of AquAdvantage salmon, Politico reported. U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has long been vehemently opposed the FDA's controversial decision and recently threatened to block the appointment of the next FDA commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf, because of it.
Two bills related to labeling genetically engineered foods have been introduced in the Missouri legislature. The first requires the labeling of GMO foods. The second calls for the use of science-based data to assess and regulate of modern agricultural technologies. Right to Know Missouri cited a poll taken in Missouri that indicated 91.1 percent of people supported enacting a GMO labeling law.
8. New Jersey
The bill to label genetically engineered foods would require products to be labeled six months following enactment of the measure. The state Senate is set to consider this legislation.
In 2014, Connecticut and Maine became the first two states to require GMO labels but their rules will only kick in after other states enact similar laws. Vermont, however, set a precedent with the passage of the first-ever no strings attached labeling mandate that's set to go into effect this July—that is, unless Big Food stops it.
As EcoWatch exclusively reported in October, the Grocery Manufacturers Association—which represents more than 300 food and beverage titans such as ConAgra, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg and Hershey—has spent millions and lobbied heavily to nullify or preempt state labeling laws. A spokesperson told us that the association “supports a uniform national standard for GMO labeling ... not a patchwork of different state labeling mandates that are confusing and costly to consumers.”
In a blow to the industry, however, Congress voted in December to not include a policy rider in the federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory GMO labeling laws.
Following the decision, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack held a closed-door meeting earlier this month with food industry honchos and GMO labeling advocates to hammer out a compromise.
Few details have emerged from the meeting but it appears that Big Food's proposal of a "Smart Label," which consists of a scannable QR code, has been shunned by opponents.
Politico reported Thursday that Tara Cook-Littman, founder of GMO-Free Connecticut, says she and four other advocates "stood strong and united for mandatory, on package GMO labeling."
"We are thankful to Secretary Vilsack for the time he spent with us, but in the end, there was not enough common ground to emerge from that room with a GMO Labeling proposal agreed upon by leaders from both camps," Cook-Littman wrote in a blog post on the website of Citizens for GMO Labeling.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.