Blog
USDA letter on federal GMO labeling law
On 02, Mar 2017 | In Blog, Featured, GMO Labeling | By admin
On July 29, 2016, President Obama signed into law an Act amending the Agricultural Marketing at of 1946 which provides for a national bioengineered food di
Ron Sass: Life is easier with GMO corn and soybeans video – Cornell Alliance for Science
Ron Sass, a corn and soybean farmer from northeast Iowa, discusses how agricultural biotechnology has helped his family farm, and how it would benefit farmers in the developing world.
Learn more about Cornell Alliance for Science here.
Food Safety News “Witnesses tell Ag Committee GE foods are safe, don’t need labels”
WAPO on Bill Nye the Science Guy
Medical Daily
Minnesota Daily
Denver Post
FOX 4
Euractive
Newsweek
Boston Globe
Des Moines Register
Genetic Literacy Project
Chicago Tribune Editorial
Daily News
Times Union Editorial
WSYR
WTEN
NEAFA release
WNBC interview
Bruce Krupke
Coalition Release
LA Times
Albany Business Review
Times Union
Capital Tonight
WTEN
WKTV
TU OPED
Finger Lakes Times
WAPO October 2013
Genetic Literacy Project April 2013
Saratogian
USDA develops government label for GMO-free products
WASHINGTON — The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients.
The USDA’s move comes as consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Several states, including Vermont, are moving to require labeling of food containing GMOs in the face of industry opposition.
The federal certification is the first of its kind and would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a “USDA Process Verified” label along with a statement that they are free of GMOs.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the department’s plan in a May 1 letter to employees, saying the certification was being done at the request of a “leading global company,” which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.
Right now, there are no government labels that only certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren’t organic.
Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department’s Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think “humanely raised” or “no antibiotics ever.” Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label.
“Recently, a leading global company asked AMS to help verify that the corn and soybeans it uses in its products are not genetically engineered so that the company could label the products as such,” Vilsack wrote in the letter. “AMS worked with the company to develop testing and verification processes to verify the non-GE claim.”
A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification “will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service.”
Genetically modified foods come from seeds that are originally engineered in laboratories to have certain traits, like resistance to herbicides. The majority of the country’s corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified, with much of that going to animal feed. GMO corn and soybeans are also made into common processed food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and soybean oil.
The government says GMOs on the market now are safe and that mandatory labels aren’t needed. Consumer advocates pushing for mandatory labeling say shoppers still have a right to know what is in their food, arguing that not enough is known about the effects of the technology. They have supported several state efforts to require labeling, with the eventual goal of having a federal standard.
The USDA label is similar to what is proposed in a GOP House bill introduced earlier this year that is designed to block those mandatory GMO labeling efforts around the country. The bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., provides for USDA certification but would not make it mandatory. The bill also would override any state laws that require the labeling.
The food industry, which backs Pompeo’s bill, has strongly opposed individual state efforts to require labeling, saying labels would be misleading because GMOs are safe.
Vermont became the first state to require the labeling in 2014, and that law will go into effect next year if it survives a legal challenge from the food industry.
A spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the major food industry trade group that challenged the Vermont law, said, “We are interested in this development and look forward to engaging with the department” on the labels.
Poorest have most to gain from GMOs, hurt most by GMO scare-mongering
The Grocery Manufacturers Association brought a lawsuit in response to Vermont becoming the first state to require GMO labeling regardless of laws passed in other states. According to GMA, the Vermont law is a “costly and misguided measure.” The concern is that, to the uniformed shopper, these labels might be perceived as warnings, adding to the continued stigmatization of GMO products.
Such stigmatization disproportionately hurts the poor, who happen to have the most to gain from GMOs. Around the world, scientists have found solutions to many ailments through the application of biotechnology. In Southeast Asia, where an enormous vitamin-A deficiency has often resulted in vision impairment, scientists created the “Golden Rice” which contains the much-needed vitamin. But because of misconceptions about GMOs, the product is still being withheld. And there are plenty of other beneficial projects involving bioengineered foods that are suffering this same fate due to an unproven fear. The truth is that cross-breeding different foods is a perfectly natural process that humans have practiced throughout history. Science is only making it better.
Read the full, original article: End the Scare-mongering
Massachusetts Groups Oppose Food Labeling Bill
On 02, Sep 2014 | In Blog, GMO Labeling | By admin
Key Leaders Point to Excessive Consumer Costs, lack of Scientific Justification
A coalition of Massachusetts and national groups is voicing strong opposition to mandatory state food labeling bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature. Bills aimed at forcing food producers and farmers to label any food that may have been derived from genetically modified crops would hurt consumers, small businesses and farmers.
All the leading scientific bodies agree that genetically modified foods are no different from foods derived from conventionally bred crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and The American Medical Association are a just a few that have found these foods to be as nutritious and safe as those. The American Association for the Advancement of Science states, “Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”
Massachusetts’ consumers wishing to avoid foods derived from genetically modified crops already have that choice under the USDA National Organic Program – a federal, voluntary, marketing scheme. “We support full disclosure of ingredients and preparation methods, but such labeling efforts should be made at the federal level for consistency and uniformity. It is nearly impossible to isolate and identify those that may have used GMO’s on a state level,” said Chris Flynn, President of the Massachusetts Food Association.
“Forced labeling will result in higher food costs for Massachusetts consumers of as much as $500 per year. That’s part of the reason the New Hampshire legislature rejected it this year and our legislature should as well,” said Bill Rennie, Vice President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Rennie also noted voters in California and Washington also rejected forced labeling referendums in the last two years, demonstrating that consumers don’t want to pay more for food due to state government labeling mandates.
In addition to genetically modified crops being safe and nutritious, there are also environmental benefits. These crops require less water, less pesticide and herbicide use, and they produce much larger crop yields.
“The current anti-GMO zeal is largely based on misinformation, it is not scientifically substantiated, but rather anti-science internet gossip and well-organized fear-mongering that profits some individuals and organizations. This type of misinformation does a disservice to innovation and the future of our society and our environment,” said Dr. Albert Kausch of the College of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Rhode Island. Kausch, who has worked in the field of Plant Genetics, Agriculture and Agricultural Biotechnology for 25 years added, “The unintended consequences of these bills may be far more reaching than their authors realize.”
Coalition members that support voluntary food labeling and oppose costly, mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetically modified crops include:
Massachusetts Food Association
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
• Associated Industries of Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Association of Dairy Farmers
• Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance
• Grocery Manufacturers Association of America
• Biotechnology Industry Organization
For more information on the expense of unnecessary labeling and the environmental and nutritional benefits of GE products, visit MaFarmtoFood.org and @MAFarmtoFood
Coalition: Ny Bill Mandating GMO Labeling Is Bad For Consumers, Farmers And Retailers
Lawmakers today voted to advance a bill that requires the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a move that a coalition of farmers, agribusiness leaders, scientists and retailers say could have serious effects on all aspects of the food production and distribution industries across New York.
The bill was passed by the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee and coalition members from across the state are urging lawmakers to vote down further action on the legislation.
Hundreds of studies have proven that genetically modified foods are as safe as foods that have not been genetically engineered. These studies have been cited by some of the most well known and most respected organizations in the country, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Putting a label on these products has the potential to mislead consumers about the safety of these products.
“Consumers currently have thousands of choices at the supermarket to buy food that does not contain any biotechnology products. No matter their choices, science has overwhelmingly proven there is no difference in the safety and nutritional values of crops that use genetic engineering. New York can’t afford to institute a costlier food labeling system for consumers, farmers and food distributors alike when there is no need”, said Jeff Williams, New York Farm Bureau Public Policy Director.
Added distribution and production costs would ultimately result in higher prices for consumers. Recent research indicates that food costs will increase by $450 – $520 per year for a family of four.
“This effort to cast perfectly safe products in a negative light is being done by a small group of individuals who are not taking into consideration the impact that this legislation will have on those who are unable to shoulder higher costs in the checkout line”, said Rick Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.
“This elitist issue is originating in affluent communities with no regard for individuals who would be directly affected by increased food costs and decreased product availability.”
State by state labeling of genetically modified foods could create a patchwork of regulations that the food industry would struggle to accommodate and could be disruptive to the industry¹s ability to get certain products to store shelves.
“State specific labeling makes no sense. We need a preserve the national uniform system of food labeling so retailers can continue to offer the widest selection of consumer goods at the lowest possible price”, said Michael Rosen, President and CEO of the Food Industry Alliance of New York State.
Members of the coalition include the following organizations:
Empire State Coalition of Agricultural Organizations
New York Farm Bureau
New York State Agribusiness Association
New York State Grange
Food Industry Alliance of New York State
New York State Vegetable Growers Association
Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance
Northeast Dairy Foods Association
Northeast Dairy Producers Association
Food labeling bill could cost Port of Albany manufacturer money, customers
On 25, Apr 2014 | In Blog, Featured, Uncategorized | By admin
Vermont is on the verge of becoming the first state to require labels on genetically modified foods.
A similar bill is approaching a vote in the New York State Assembly.
The bill has gained popularity in Albany, New York and among consumers, but it will likely create complications for food producers.
Alex Allen, who manages a flour mill on the Hudson River, said the passing of a labeling law for genetically modified foods would hurt his business. In industry lingo, genetically modified food is known as GMO.
“One of the biggest challenges of being a manufacturer, especially in the food industry, is complying with changing perceptions of customers,” Allen said. “People are driven by perceptions. They are scared of random foods everyday whether it has to do with GMOs, gluten or carbs.”
Horizon Milling ships 2 million pounds of flour out of the Port of Albany per day. Horizon Milling is a subsidiary of Cargill, the global food producer and marketer in the agricultural, financial and industrial sectors.
Horizon Milling receives shipments of wheat by boat, truck and rail, which it processes into flour.
Today, there is no requirement for food producers to label genetically modified foods. The proposed legislation in Albany, sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal (D-Manhattan), would require food producers to label genetically modified foods to consumers.
Americans overwhelmingly support the labeling of genetically modified foods. A 2013 New York Times poll shows 93 percent of respondents favor labeling.
Allen says it would be impossible to ensure that the wheat Horizon Milling is using to make flour isn’t coming into contact with other genetically modified foods.
“Who’s to know whether there was genetically modified corn in the rail car before the wheat we use to make flour was transported from the field to our plant,” Allen said. “There’s no way you can test for GMOs. They are invisible. How are you going to label a phantom?”
Foods are genetically modified to maintain size or to produce their own pesticides. There is no research proving that GMO foods pose health risks, but health concerns are the main force behind the bills in both New York and Vermont.
GMO labeling is required in more than 64 countries, including China and Japan. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than two dozen states are considering GMO labeling bills.
Categories
