Quantcast
GMO

GE Labeling Needed Now More Than Ever

Alliance for Natural Health—USA

The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act was introduced last Wednesday in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) with nine cosponsors in the Senate and 22 in the House, would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product that has been genetically engineered (GE) or contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or else the product would be classified as “misbranded” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Both Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio have previously sponsored GMO labeling bills, but this is the first labeling bill that has both bicameral and bipartisan support—though the latter is decidedly modest: only one cosponsor in each chamber is a Republican, and both are from Alaska.

The new labeling requirement does not apply to food used in restaurants, hospitals or other medical environments. Nor does it apply to food produced using a GE vaccine or a “processing aid” such as yeast. Food manufacturers are protected so long as they have a statement from the grower that the food contains no GMOs.

The bill also protects producers whose food was unintentionally contaminated by GMOs, so long as the contamination did not occur as a result of negligence. Enforcement would be left up to the FDA rather than through civil action.

Both Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio note that the public has been pressuring the government to label GMOs. Sen. Boxer also listed some of the many businesses and organizations that support the GMO labeling bill—including the Alliance for Natural Health—USA.

Although we are extremely pleased that the legislation has been introduced, at this stage it is unlikely to have enough support in the Senate (much less in the House) to pass. Only about five percent of either chamber has signed on as a cosponsor, and support from the Republicans on this bill is notably weak.

On top of that, many elected officials are in bed with the biotech industry—which, it should go without saying, immediately pushed back against the bill. The very day the bill was introduced, representatives of Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a GE trade group, objected to the bill even while acknowledging they had not actually read it, saying that they oppose GMO labeling on general principle:

“Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products.”

Once again, Monsanto seems to be saying that it is so proud of its product that it doesn’t want consumers to know they are getting it.

What this means is that your voice is even more important now. In strengthening the bill’s chances, the more pressure you can put on your legislators, the better. Our grassroots activism is definitely starting to bear fruit—overt opposition from the food industry for a federal labeling standard is weakening, and may even have sparked some preemptive action on their part:

  • Some food companies recently met with the FDA to discuss GMO labeling in a meeting sponsored by the AGree Foundation.

  • Walmart announced that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts.

  • Whole Foods says that by 2018, all products sold in their stores throughout the U.S. and Canada must be labeled if they contain GMOs.

As heartening as it is to see the food industry beginning to respond to the public’s calls for labeling, it’s extremely important that this also happens at the federal level, especially considering that GE salmon is on the verge of approval. As we reported earlier this year, the FDA released an environmental assessment on AquaBounty’s GM salmon that concluded that the fish would have “no significant” environmental impact—thus pushing “Frankenfish” one step closer to approval. If this happens, it will create a dangerous precedent—in essence, a regulatory approval pathway—for other genetically engineered animals which the biotech industry has waiting on the sidelines.

At the state level, more than 65 bills concerning GMOs have been introduced so far in 2013, the majority of them about labeling. None so far has been enacted into law; thirteen of them have been defeated. A few, though, have positive momentum:

  • Alaska: Already has a law requiring labeling of GMO shellfish and fish, and on March 25, the legislature unanimously approved resolution HJR 5, opposing a petition by AquaBounty Technologies to commercialize GE salmon.

  • Connecticut: Two GMO labeling bills (HB 6519 and HB 6527) passed out of committee by an overwhelming majority. Supporters have until June 5 to get the full legislature to pass them.

  • Maine: LD 718 has more than 120 bipartisan cosponsors. Maine’s legislative session ends on June 13.

  • Vermont: H 112 has more than 50 sponsors and the support of Gov. Shumlin (despite opposing the bill last year after Monsanto threatened to sue the state if a GMO labeling bill passed). The bill has already passed the House Ag Committee.

  • Washington: After an extensive grassroots campaign, ballot initiative I-522 was able to gather 353,331 valid signatures. The initiative will be on the ballot in November 2013.

These various GMO labeling initiatives are especially important in light of a recent report that links glyphosate—the pesticide Roundup, for which the genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops were created so that more and more of the pesticide could be used without damaging the plant—to a wide range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility, and various cancers.

There’s a family of fifty different enzymes collectively known as Cytochrome P450 (CYP450), which are the detoxification heavy hitters in the human body. According to the report, glyphosate destroys the CYP450 detoxification pathways. Not only is the expanded use of Roundup increasing our exposure to this toxic herbicide; it’s also reducing the body’s ability to detoxify many xenobiotics. It’s a potentially very dangerous double whammy.

When the CYP450 pathways are destroyed, it results in altered gut bacteria and ultimately all the western-related, chronic diseases such as diabetes. If the plants were not genetically altered to withstand such high concentrations of the pesticide, we wouldn’t be exposed to such toxic and health-destroying levels.

Visit EcoWatch’s GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM page for more related news on this topic.

 

Show Comments ()
Sponsored
Leonardo DiCaprio/Getty

Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation Awards $20M in Largest-Ever Portfolio of Environmental Grants

Environmental activist and Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio announced that his foundation has awarded $20 million to more than 100 organizations supporting environmental causes.

This is the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation's (LDF) largest-ever portfolio of environmental grants to date. The organization has now offered more than $80 million in total direct financial impact since its founding in 1998.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Andrew Hart/Flickr

UN Environment Chief: Make Polluters, Not Taxpayers, Pay For Destroying Nature

Erik Solheim, the head of the United Nations' Environment Program, made an interesting point during a recent speech in New York: Companies, not taxpayers, should pay the costs of damaging the planet.

"The profit of destroying nature or polluting the planet is nearly always privatized, while the costs of polluting the planet or the cost of destroying ecosystems is nearly always socialized," Solheim said Monday, per Reuters, at the annual International Conference on Sustainable Development at Columbia University.

Keep reading... Show less
Soy was one of the key agricultural crops found to have decreased nutritional content when grown in a high C02 environment. Bigstockphoto

C02 and Food: We Can't Sacrifice Quality for Quantity

Bigger isn't always better. Too much of a good thing can be bad. Many anti-environmentalists throw these simple truths to the wind, along with caution.

You can see it in the deceitful realm of climate change denial. It's difficult to keep up with the constantly shifting—and debunked—denier arguments, but one common thread promoted by the likes of the Heartland Institute in the U.S. and its Canadian affiliate, the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition, illustrates the point. They claim carbon dioxide is good for plants, and plants are good for people, so we should aim to pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere than we already are.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Meet the 4 Horsemen of the EPA-pocalypse

By Mary Anne Hitt

Every week, another decision that endangers our families seems to come out of Scott Pruitt's and Donald Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The latest facepalm/outrage comes in the form of confirmation hearings that start this week for four completely unacceptable nominees to critical leadership positions at EPA.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular

Trump's Pick for Top EPA Post Under Scrutiny for Deep Ties to Chemical Industry

From Scott Pruitt to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump has notoriously appointed a slew of individuals with serious conflicts of interests with the departments they oversee.

The latest is Michael L. Dourson, Trump's pick to head the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the government's chemical safety program. Media reports reveal that the toxicologist is under intense scrutiny for his extensive ties to the chemical industry and a resumé dotted with some of the biggest names in the field: Koch Industries Inc., Chevron Corp., Dow AgroSciences, DuPont and Monsanto.

Keep reading... Show less
Researchers warn that unchecked fossil fuel emissions would raise global temperatures to catastrophic levels. Gerry Machen / Flickr

New Study: Global Warming Limit Can Still Be Achieved

By Tim Radford

Scientists in the UK have good news for the 195 nations that pledged to limit global warming to well below 2°C: it can be done. The ideal limit of no more than 1.5°C above the average temperatures for most of human history is possible.

All it requires is an immediate reduction in the combustion of fossil fuels—a reduction that will continue for the next 40 years, until the world is driven only by renewable energy.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular
Hurricane-damaged Barbuda. Caribbean Community / Flickr

Devastated Island Leaders: Climate Change 'A Truth Which Hits Us'

As residents in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands prepared to take cover from Hurricane Maria, representatives of island nations devastated by hurricanes made a plea to the UN for recovery funding.

In a hastily-convened special session, leaders of Barbuda, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas and other nations detailed the billions of dollars needed to rebuild after Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and argued that the increasing impacts of climate change on island nations required a rethinking of how the UN provides humanitarian aid.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Gen. Joseph L. Lengyel / Facebook

National Guard Chief Highlights Climate Change as Pruitt Touts Denial on TV

Climate change could be causing storms to become "bigger, larger, more violent," underlining the need to have a robust military response to disasters across the country, the top officer of the National Guard Bureau said Tuesday.

"I do think that the climate is changing, and I do think that it is becoming more severe," Gen. Joseph Lengyel told reporters, noting the number of severe storms that have hit the U.S. in the past month. The general might want to take U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt aside for a chat on climate change and disasters: Pruitt sat down for two friendly interviews on Fox yesterday to tout his idea for a red team/blue team "debate" on climate.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

Get EcoWatch in your inbox