The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Will Other Cities Follow Cincy's Lead and Encourage Federal Lawmakers to Require Labeling of GE Foods?
Genetically engineered foods have been quietly making their way onto grocery store shelves since Roundup Ready corn and soybeans were introduced in 1996, and now, the majority of processed foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. GE foods, made by inserting genetic material from one species into another, are unlabeled, untested and potentially unsafe. Unfortunately for consumers, regulatory agencies overseeing the approval of GE foods were not set up to address the long-term human health and environmental impacts of GE foods.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts no independent safety testing on GE foods and instead relies on data submitted by biotechnology companies. Because foods containing GE ingredients aren’t required to be labeled, consumers don’t even know when they are eating them. This is because the FDA views them as no different from conventional foods. Independent research on the safety of GE foods has been limited because companies prohibit the cultivation of seeds for research purposes in the licensing agreements that control the use of patented seeds. Even so, some independent, peer-reviewed research has revealed troubling health implications including deteriorated liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development.
The biotechnology industry spent more than a half a billion dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions between 1999 and 2009 to ensure that regulatory oversight of GE foods remain watered down and that consumers are kept in the dark. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta secured regulatory approval and patented the seeds of GE corn, soybeans and cotton among others. Now, some biotech companies are looking to patent GE animals, which, if approved for human consumption, could open the floodgates to a whole new wave of GE foods in our stores.
Labels are the best way for consumers to make choices about the foods they want to eat, but the U.S. government has failed to require labeling for GE ingredients. Currently, the only way for consumers to ensure that they’re not eating GE foods is to only buy products with an organic label. But other countries have banned or enforced labeling of GE foods (see map below).
Food & Water Watch is calling on state and national lawmakers and regulators to require the labeling of foods containing GE ingredients, thereby giving consumers the right to know what is in their food through their "Let Me Decide” campaign. Across the country, we are urging local municipalities to stand with consumers and pass resolutions pressuring federal regulators and lawmakers to require labeling for genetically engineered ingredients, like the City of Cincinnati recently passed. In some states like New York, we’re pushing for statewide legislation that could help spur Congress to act on GE labeling. The recent narrow defeat of California’s Prop 37, which would have required GE labeling in the state, serves as a reminder to us all that biotechnology will continue to lobby hard against consumers’ right to know.
President Obama could do his part to protect U.S. consumers by standing up to Big Agribusiness and directing the FDA to require labeling today. Congress could also prioritize research on the health and environmental effects of GE foods, as well as the need for labeling. Polls show that a vast majority of consumers want food containing GE ingredients to be labeled, but most large food companies will continue to ignore consumers’ demands that GE foods are labeled until they are held accountable by law.
We all deserve the right to know what’s in our food and to decide whether or not to consume or purchase GE foods.
Visit EcoWatch’s GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Emily Deanne
Shower shoes? Check. Extra-long sheets? Yep. Energy efficiency checklist? No worries — we've got you covered there. If you're one of the nation's 12.1 million full-time undergraduate college students, you no doubt have a lot to keep in mind as you head off to school. If you're reading this, climate change is probably one of them, and with one-third of students choosing to live on campus, dorm life can have a big impact on the health of our planet. In fact, the annual energy use of one typical dormitory room can generate as much greenhouse gas pollution as the tailpipe emissions of a car driven more than 156,000 miles.
By Lorraine Chow
Kokia drynarioides is a small but significant flowering tree endemic to Hawaii's dry forests. Native Hawaiians used its large, scarlet flowers to make lei. Its sap was used as dye for ropes and nets. Its bark was used medicinally to treat thrush.
States that invest heavily in renewable energy will generate billions of dollars in health benefits in the next decade instead of spending billions to take care of people getting sick from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, according to a new study from MIT and reported on by The Verge.
Hawaii's Kilauea volcano could be gearing up for an eruption after a pond of water was discovered inside its summit crater for the first time in recorded history, according to the AP.
By Kristin Ohlson
From where I stand inside the South Dakota cornfield I was visiting with entomologist and former USDA scientist Jonathan Lundgren, all the human-inflicted traumas to Earth seem far away. It isn't just that the corn is as high as an elephant's eye — are people singing that song again? — but that the field burgeons and buzzes and chirps with all sorts of other life, too.
Humanity faced its hottest month in at least 140 years in July, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said on Thursday. The finding confirms similar analysis provided by its EU counterparts.
By Hans Nicholas Jong
Indonesia's president has made permanent a temporary moratorium on forest-clearing permits for plantations and logging.
It's a policy the government says has proven effective in curtailing deforestation, but whose apparent gains have been criticized by environmental activists as mere "propaganda."