GMO labeling misleading, costly for consumers

By Richard Felts, Guest Commentary
Activists pushing for mandated labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods are really pushing a disingenuous political agenda that will be both confusing and costly for consumers.
For years, these activists have tried to insinuate there might be something risky about GM foods. However, the scientific consensus — built around countless studies and 7 trillion meals consumed — has remained solid that GM foods are as safe as any other foods.
With the science settled, those pushing for mandatory GM labeling now say they just want consumers to have access to information. In a recent Roll Call op-ed, Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group said the issue of GM labeling “is about more than the right to know what we’re buying and eating. It’s also about consumer confusion.”
That’s a distortion of the issue. This is not about the right to know. The fact is that Faber and the other anti-GM activists support measures that would exempt approximately two thirds of food products on the market from being labeled. How will this provide the consumer with any useful information?
GM critics ignore the fact that existing food labeling policies already provide information about which foods have genetically modified ingredients and which do not. Food labeled USDA Certified Organic does not contain genetically modified ingredients. For consumers who choose to avoid GM food, this label provides them a reliable alternative.
Instead of educating consumers about the simple option that already exists, GM labeling proponents have been pushing states to pass initiatives requiring that food with GM ingredients also be specially labeled. Not only would this be duplicative, these initiatives routinely contain multiple exemptions and loopholes that would muddle — not clarify — consumer choices.
Under a GM labeling law passed in Vermont, vegetable soup would be labeled “genetically modified” while vegetable beef soup would not because meat is exempt under the law. Vermont also exempted dietary supplements despite the fact that many herbal supplements contain GM ingredients.
Activists in California pushed an initiative that would have required GM labels on a packaged pizza purchased in a supermarket, but not on a pizza purchased from a restaurant. Fruit juice would have required a label, but alcohol containing the same GM ingredients would have been exempt.
In Oregon, activists pushed a GM labeling initiative that would have exempted two-thirds of the food and beverages purchased by consumers. This included meat and dairy products that come from animals raised on genetically engineered food, which conflicts with existing labeling standards for “organic” products.
If activists really cared about a consumer’s “right to know,” they would not be drafting, endorsing and advertising in favor of a patchwork of state regulations that would leave consumers in the dark about what they are buying. Studies have also shown these state labeling measures would raise the average consumer’s grocery bill $400 to $500 a year.
Consumers will not be served by individual states taking different approaches to food labeling. The best way to protect the consumer’s right to know is by reaffirming the FDA’s role as our national authority on food safety and labeling.
This is the approach taken by the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, bipartisan legislation introduced in the last Congress by Representatives Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, and G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., which is expected to be reintroduced in the coming session.
The right to know is about ensuring consumers have access to clear and consistent information, not creating a confusing maze of different state-based standards.

Richard Felts is the president of Kansas Farm Bureau

Ballot measures on GMO labeling fail in Colorado, Oregon

• 

  iStockphoto.com

  Ballot measures that would have required labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients were defeated by voters in Colo.

  From WATTAgNet:
  Ballot measures that would have required labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients were defeated by voters in Colorado and Oregon this week. These states join California and Washington as states that have voted down the labeling laws.
  Vermont has passed a labeling bill that is set to take effect in 2016. Maine and Connecticut have passed labeling laws, but they will only take effect if other states follow suit.
  The fight over the proposals was an expensive one, with opponents in Oregon raising about $20 million and supporters raising $7.5 million. In Colorado, proponents of the measure raised $896,000 while opponents raised $16.7 million. The 2013 ballot measure in Washington was the costliest in state history.
  "Measure 92 would have burdened our state's family farmers and food producers with costly new compliance regulations and red tape," said Pat McCormick, spokesman for the No on 92 Coalition.
  But opponents of GMOs say they will continue their fight.
  "This is a social movement that's gaining power, as people become more aware of how their food is produced," said George Kimbrell, a senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety. "So there's great success there regardless of the outcome of the measure."

GMO acreage to grow in US

Acreage planted with GMO strains will increase in the U.S., according to a recent report. Approximately 86% of corn is now genetically modified with 47% applying stacked gene technology. Soybean varieties will increase to 93% of acres planted, a 2% rise from 2009.
The general acceptance of GMO crops in North America and their extension to Latin America and other regions of the world is contrary to the reactionary policy of the European Union.
However, attitudes seem to be softening as GMO crops will be required to meet the demands of a burgeoning world population. Recently, the European Commission has proposed delegating the freedom to decide on cultivation of crops to individual member nations. Unless GMO crops achieve significant acceptance, extension of biotechnology to developing nations will be restrained.
Approval of GMOs has significant implications for world trade. Austrian and Dutch governments support for independent decisions on GMO crops and these nations have been instrumental in initiating the new trend towards separate decisions. Critics of the move suggest that if adopted, European solidarity on other issues may be impaired.

Call for GM rethink to prevent European feed shortages

The European Union faces renewed disruption to animal feed supplies this year unless policymakers find a rapid solution to traces of genetically modified organisms in soy imports, according to at least one EU industry group.
Last autumn, imports of soybeans from the United States came to a near standstill because of the European Union’s zero-tolerance rule on shipments containing tiny traces of GMOs not yet approved in the bloc.
"This spring new GM varieties will be commercially sown in North and South America which are unlikely to be approved in the EU by October," said Klaus-Dieter Schumacher, head of markets at Europe’s grain trade association Coceral. "This could lead to a similar situation as last autumn, and the need for a solution is still as urgent as it was then."

Official: China has not planted imported GMO seeds

An unidentified official from China’s Ministry of Agriculture denied reports that the Chinese government has given the go-ahead for wide-scale farming of genetically modified crops, according to Reuters news agency. Although China has imported genetically modified grain, seeds and cotton, it used them “as raw materials for processing,” he said.
His country seeks to develop its own genetically modified crops to reduce reliance on imports, he said. The government has approved field trials for 20 genetically modified crops, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences

GM research urgent

The UK’s national academy of science, The Royal Society, is calling for a GBP2 billion (US$3.28 billion) “Grand Challenge” research programme on global food security.
It has, today, published a report arguing that the UK should lead international research efforts to achieve the massive increase in food crop production (at least 50 percent) that will be required by 2050 to meet global food demands without damaging the environment.
The Royal Society says that implementing a research programme that directs at least GBP200 million in funding annually for the next 10 years to science that improves crops and sustainable crop management must be a priority for the UK government. This would see the addition of at least GBP50 million to what is already spent on science for food-crops each year.
The programme should support areas of research that have been neglected in recent years, the Society says, including exploring new methods of crop management to increase yields and minimize environmental impact. It should also support the development of improved crop varieties by both conventional breeding and genetic modification.
The report’s authors discuss a variety of possible solutions to the impending food shortage. ... Read the full blog.

GMO hullabaloo

Given the fact that world demand for food is going to skyrocket, some see it doubling, in the years ahead, it seems that the only word to describe the controversy over genetically-modified organisms is this one: nonsense. The biggest battle over GMOs right now is in the European Union (EU). And it's because of this: last summer, minute traces of unapproved GMO corn unapproved in the EU but approved in the U.S. was found in a shipment of soybeans from the U.S. to Europe. The result has been literally to freeze soybean exports to the EU, which has created nothing short of a crisis for the European feed and livestock industries.
At the moment there is only about a 30-day supply of much needed soy in Spain and several other countries. Because the U.S. cannot guarantee that soy shipments are free of traces of GMO corn, no U.S. soy is being exported to the EU. And with one of the lowest harvests of South American soybeans years due to a serious drought, there are no soybeans of South American beans available for export to anyone. Adding more pressure to the mix for the EU is the fact that China is buying large quantities of soybeans this year.
As a result, it's said that the premium on soybean meal in Europe at the moment is as much as $90/ton.The EU's stance of dragging its heels is putting its feed and livestock industries at a comparative disadvantage, but the larger issue is how its position is justified in a world that is going to need increasing amounts of food, especially animal protein, in the years ahead.
Read the full blog.

EU needs soy imports, lacks approval

According to reports, imports of U.S. soybeans to the European Union have been halted due to EU regulations against non-approved GMOs, even in trace amounts.
Because of low harvests in South America this year, Europe needs six to 7.5 million tons of U.S. soybeans, say feed industry and grain trade associations Fediol, Fefac and Coceral. The soybeans are needed for animal feed production.
No decisions were made Oct. 19 by EU farm ministers regarding GMO approvals, though the EU Commission indicated it would make a quick decision.In past months, 180,000 tons of U.S. soy were not allowed into Europe due to traces of three GMO maize not approved by the EU.

EU ban on GM ingredients imposes costs

According to the Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie, the Dutch association for the feed industry, the zero-tolerance standard relating to GMO contamination of imported feed ingredients will impose high costs on feed manufacturers, livestock producers and, ultimately, consumers.
In addition to the current ban on importation of canola, corn and rice products from North America, the new barrier to soybeans will impose a severe economic impact. Nevedi, which represents 115 feed companies in Holland, collectively producing 96% of the 13 million tons of feed produced annually, calculates the cost will be as high as US$380 million with a potential loss of up to 700 jobs. The damage could be higher if the ban is extended to oil marketed from imported beans.
Nevedi has consistently emphasized that the zero tolerance for unapproved GM material in imported products is unwarranted and represents a severe burden for producers in Holland and other EU countries, and will affect competitiveness of the EU agri-food industry.
Pedro Correa, president of the European Food Manufacturers Association (FEFAC), indicated banning soybean imports from the U.S. will be of concern to the entire livestock industry until the new crop of soybeans becomes available from Latin America during spring 2010. The EU will compete with China for available soybean, and yields from Argentina are expected to be depressed due to drought conditions.
The EU depends on imports for 80% of vegetable protein requirements, and the zero-tolerance policy, which cannot be justified by scientific studies that have confirmed safety, may ultimately be to the detriment of the EU. According to the Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie, the Dutch association for the feed industry, the zero-tolerance standard relating to GMO contamination of imported feed ingredients will impose high costs on feed manufacturers, livestock producers and, ultimately, consumers.
In addition to the current ban on importation of canola, corn and rice products from North America, the new barrier to soybeans will impose a severe economic impact. Nevedi, which represents 115 feed companies in Holland, collectively producing 96% of the 13 million tons of feed produced annually, calculates the cost will be as high as US$380 million with a potential loss of up to 700 jobs. The damage could be higher if the ban is extended to oil marketed from imported beans.
Nevedi has consistently emphasized that the zero tolerance for unapproved GM material in imported products is unwarranted and represents a severe burden for producers in Holland and other EU countries, and will affect competitiveness of the EU agri-food industry.
Pedro Correa, president of the European Food Manufacturers Association (FEFAC), indicated banning soybean imports from the U.S. will be of concern to the entire livestock industry until the new crop of soybeans becomes available from Latin America during spring 2010. The EU will compete with China for available soybean, and yields from Argentina are expected to be depressed due to drought conditions.
The EU depends on imports for 80% of vegetable protein requirements, and the zero-tolerance policy, which cannot be justified by scientific studies that have confirmed safety, may ultimately be to the detriment of the EU.

Germany introduces 'without gene technology' logo

The minister for agriculture of the Federal Republic of Germany has introduced a standard logo to be applied to foods free of GMO ingredients, according to a news report.
The intent of the logo is to create "more freedom of choice and enhancement of transparency." It may be difficult to use in practice and will have limited application.
Currently, a label "without gene technology" is applied to food products which were produced only with conventional GMO corn or soy but incorporate vitamins, enzymes or other additives possibly derived from genetically modified organisms.
The present "without gene technology" label is seldom used as it is virtually impossible for a manufacturer to confirm that all the ingredients used to produce a livestock-derived product are free of any GMO component.