tagged w/ Consumer choice
-
In Only 6 Months, Already 850,000+ Public Comments To FDA In Support Of Labeling
This morning a bicameral letter signed by 55 Members of Congress was sent to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The bicameral, bipartisan letter led by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was written in support of a legal petition filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of the Just Label It campaign and its nearly 400 partner organizations and businesses; many health, consumer, environmental, and farming organizations, as well as food companies, are also signatories. Since CFS filed the labeling petition in October 2011, the public has submitted over 850,000 comments in support of labeling.
“Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “FDA’s two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked. The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations’ citizens.”
In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand—consistently near 95%—for the labeling of GE foods. The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations. Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.
In its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not “materially” different from other foods. However, the agency severely limited what it considered “material” by targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses – applying 19th century science to the regulation of 21st century food technologies. The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.
The Congressional letter to FDA states:
At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat…The agency currently requires over 3,000 other ingredients, additives, and processes to be labeled; providing basic information doesn’t confuse the public, it empowers them to make choices. Absent labeling, Americans are unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase GE foods…. We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world.
More at the linkIn Only 6 Months, Already 850,000+ Public Comments To FDA In Support Of Labeling... more
-
-
Robert Kenner (Food Inc.) has done this video for GMO labelling. Freedom on the Internet is important as we all know, but so is freedom to make informed choices about the foods we purchase and consume. This needs to be the year we see that happen.Robert Kenner (Food Inc.) has done this video for GMO labelling. Freedom on the... more
-
-
A fight to maintain consumer choice and farm independence has landed Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen on Utne Reader's list of "25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World," published in the November/December edition of the magazine on newsstands now.
Organic seed potato farmer Jim Gerritsen heads a trade association that is suing chemical giant Monsanto. (photo: Charlotte Hedley ) Gerritsen, wife Megan, and their four children run the Wood Prairie Farm in Bridgewater, which produces and sells organic seed potatoes to kitchen gardeners and market farmers in all 50 states. Gerritsen is also president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, and it was that role that led to the Utne recognition.
The nonprofit organization created a stir in food and farming communities when, with legal backing from the Public Patent Foundation, it filed a lawsuit in March against the chemical and biotechnology giant Monsanto. OSGATA has since been joined in the lawsuit by 82 other seed businesses, trade organizations and family farmers, which together represent more than 270,000 people.
The lawsuit questions the validity of Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seeds, and seeks protection from patent-infringement lawsuits for the plaintiffs should their crops become contaminated with Monsanto's transgenic crops.
"The viewpoint of Monsanto is that (in such a situation) we have their technology, even though we don't want it and it has zero value in the organic market," Gerritsen said. "We think they should keep their pollution on their side of the fence."
Laws prohibit certified organic crops from containing genetically modified ingredients, and Monsanto's patents prohibit farmers from growing its seeds unless purchased from the company. Yet pollen doesn't heed certification or patent laws, and regularly drifts from transgenic crops to contaminate nearby non-genetically altered ones.
To add insult to injury, Monsanto has a reputation for suing or threatening to sue farmers for patent infringement in cases involving its genetically altered seeds, action reported in numerous media outlets as wide ranging as the Columbia Daily Tribune, CBS News and the New York Times.
Despite this well documented legal tactic, Monsanto spokesperson Thomas Helscher stated in an email: "Monsanto has never sued and has publicly committed to not sue farmers over the inadvertent presence of biotechnology traits in their fields. The company does not and will not pursue legal action against a farmer where patented seed or traits are found in that farmer's field as a result of unintentional means."
"Inadvertent" and "unintentional" are the key words here, but for farmers to prove that Monsanto's transgenic seeds are unwanted invaders in a court of law is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. A 2005 report from the Center for Food Safety, an organic-food and sustainable agriculture advocacy group, contends that Monsanto had at that time filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers. The report also contends that the corporation employed 75 people armed with a budget of $10 million devoted "solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
Pre-trial motions are still being filed in the lawsuit brought by OSGATA, with the most recent from Monsanto asking that the lawsuit be dismissed.
Helscher said the motion to dismiss results from the corporation's pledge to not sue farmers "where patented seed or traits are found in that farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means. Accordingly, there is no real controversy between parties and the OSGATA case should be dismissed."
Gerritsen views Monsanto's statements as part of a disinformation campaign designed to prolong the lawsuit.
"What they typically try to do is drag out lawsuits as long as they can, hoping the plaintiffs will run out of funding," Gerritsen said. He is confident OSGATA has the resources necessary to pursue this lawsuit for years, if necessary.
Unlike open pollinated crops such as corn and canola, which have suffered from widespread contamination by genetically modified seeds, potatoes remain relatively safe, Gerritsen said.
Monsanto developed multiple strains of transgenic potatoes in the 1990s under the name New Leaf. However, when major food companies such as McCain, which operates a french fry processing plant in Easton, and McDonald's rejected genetically-modified potatoes, Monsanto was forced to pull its transgenic strains off the market.
Gerritsen said the lawsuit will also seek to clarify what he sees as Monsanto's contradictory stance on its genetically modified seeds.
When arguing against labeling of transgenic food, Monsanto and other biotech companies claim that genetically modified seeds are substantially equivalent to traditional seeds. However, when seeking patents, the same companies claim the insertion of foreign genes creates unique seeds deserving of patent protection.
"Which is it?" Gerritsen asked. "It's one or other, but it can't be both. Is it the same? Or is it different?"
All genetically modified seeds are designed to do something different from the original seed. This can mean the modified seed will produce increased quantities of a particular substance inherent to the plant, manufacture chemicals foreign to the original plant, or withstand heavy applications of herbicides and pesticides manufactured by the same corporation seeking the seed patent.
snip
Citing the revolving door between corporations (including Monsanto) and the government agencies which purport to regulate them, Gerritsen said, "we basically have a dysfunctional government. The Occupy Wall Street concept is to try to give power back to the people."
In the same vein, the lawsuit against Monsanto seeks to restore the power of citizens and farmers to choose food free from genetically modified organisms.A fight to maintain consumer choice and farm independence has landed Maine farmer Jim... more
-
-
At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO labelling on the ballot in California in 2012. This will hopefully be the beginning of a nationwide effort to do what Europe did years ago due to citizen action. Labelling GMOs in our food will give us a choice in what we purchase and what we consume. Of course, Monsanto and the biotech lobby have their money, big guns and political connections, but we the consumer have the power of the purse and the voices to drown them out and it is time we used them.
More at the link.At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO... more
-
-
This article refers to a report published last week by the US Department of Agriculture attache in Rome, Cynthia Barmore, with the revealing title "How to Influence Public Opinion about Agricultural Biotechnology" [1].
Insult to European democracy
The report is an insult to Italian democracy, and to European farmers, food producers, retailers and consumers. It is also riddled with misinformation which AgriMoney.com failed to correct.
The USDA describes Italians who oppose GMOs as a "minority composed of fringe groups" and talks of the need for the US to "educate" Italian consumers about food!
The anti-GM "fringe groups" which the USDA hopes to educate include:
* The Italian Government, whose Minister for Agriculture, Luca Zaia [2] said "A new ethics for agriculture is needed if we truly want to feed the world. My opposition to GMOs is well-known, in fact I do not believe that they are the solution to the hunger problem. We are with the farmers and always with those who work." [3]
*16 of Italy's 20 Regional Governments - together with 41 provinces and 2,446 municipalities - that have declared themselves as GMO-free zones; [4]
*Italy's main farming union Coldiretti, with 18 regional federations for 98 provinces, 765 area offices, 9,812 sections, and over 568,000 farms; [5]
*Italy's biggest retailer, CoopItalia; [6]
*leading Italian food brands that have adopted GM-free supply chains such as the giant meat and poultry producer BovinMarche [7], Amadori (one of Europe's biggest producers of chicken and turkey) [8], and the poultry producer Fileni; [9]
*the national multi-stakeholder initiative ItaliaEuropa Liberi da OGM [10] involving 28 organisations representing farmers, large distribution, small and medium sized businesses, consumer, environmental, scientific, cultural and international cooperation interest groups opposed to GM food and farming. During two months in 2007, ItaliaEuropa organised a National Consultation on GMOs which collected 3 million votes against GMOs; [11]
*the University of Gastronomic Sciences [12], a government-backed international research and education centre for the renewal of farming methods, the protection of biodiversity, and the development of an organic relationship between gastronomy and agricultural science;
*Slow Food International [13], the Italian-based globally influential eco-gastronomic network which campaigns for good, clean, fair and GM-free food and farming with 100,000 members in 132 countries - whose founder Carlo Petrini was described by the UK's Guardian newspaper as one of the "50 people who could save the planet."
USDA wrong about the facts
The USDA report describes a Eurobarometer survey from 2005 as "the most recent data" on EU public opinion towards agricultural biotechnology, and claims that 65% of Italians "support biotechnology".
In reality, Eurobarometer's most recent survey on GMOs was published in 2008: it found that 58% of Europeans - incuding 55% of Italians - are "personally opposed" to GM food and farming, while only 21% support their use [14]. The most recent Italian survey - carried out by Coldiretti-SWG in 2009 - found that 63% of Italian consumers believe that GM foods are less healthy than traditional foods, up from 52% in 2003. [14]
The report's claim that most Italians "support biotechnology" is also misleading, because the vast majority of Europeans have no objection to non-GM biotechnology applications such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) of beneficial crop traits, and the production of insulin and other medicines from the contained use of GM bacteria in sealed vats in biosecure laboratories. No objection to these forms of biotech does not indicate support for GM crops!
__________________
The USDA: desperate liars towing the biotech line for profit. Amazing isn't it? And this is Obama's USDA now. And they're still lying looking for a target as opposition to this scam grows.This article refers to a report published last week by the US Department of... more
-
-
Now that is a positive trend. Take that, Monsanto. Knowledge IS power. Hopefully, this can continue without our biodiversity being totally destroyed by GMOs. Though, I think I read where Monsanto is actually coming out with a NON GMO soybean. Hmmm, do they see that their GMO crap is just a fad? Or will it only say NON GMO on their bags?Now that is a positive trend. Take that, Monsanto. Knowledge IS power. Hopefully, this... more
-
