While it is important to sign petitions or call your Senators to make sure they reject the DARK Act, Center for Food Safety director Andrew Kimbrell says that there are additional, maybe even more important, steps that people need to take: calling the Democratic senators on the Agriculture Committee.
“Right now, there is only Republican support for the DARK Act on the Ag Committee, and the Republicans desperately want but don’t yet have any Democrats supporting this bill.”
This is stunning to me, since I was raised in a Republican family in Texas and taught the importance of “personal responsibility.” It’s a Republican mantra, and it is critical when it comes to our food, so that we can make an informed choice when it comes to feeding our families. How can we take responsibility for our health? How can we keep ourselves, our families and employees healthy and out of the health care system that has become so much about disease management if we don’t know what is in our food?
How can we take responsibility for our health if we don’t know how our food is made?
All of our key trading partners have been given this information. Our own American corporations already label GMOs in the products that they sell overseas. Yet for some reason, it’s a handful of Republicans that don’t want that liberty for all. It is the only party that I ever belonged to, when I was younger, and I can not understand how they haven’t taken a stand against “big government” feeding us these ingredients without our informed consent.
Not only is it anti-American, but it is anti-personal responsibility, a Republican mantra.
So what can an American do? Our best strategy is to call all of the Democrats on the Ag Committee, particularly Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN). These two Democrats are from the Midwest, a part of the country where Big Food has a lot of influence, and they are undoubtedly facing a lot of pressure to change their positions and support the DARK Act, the Roberts Bill
Democrats on the Agriculture Committee include:
Debbie Stabenow (MI), Ranking Member (202) 224-4822
Patrick Leahy (VT) (202) 224-4242
Sherrod Brown (OH) (202) 224-2315
Amy Klobuchar (MN) (202) 224-3244
Michael Bennet (CO) (202) 224-5852
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) (202) 224-4451
Joe Donnelly (IN) (202) 224-4814
Heidi Heitkamp (ND) (202) 224-2043
Robert Casey (PA) (202) 224-6324
Please call the Senators above – ESPECIALLY the one from your state – and urge them to reject Sen. Pat Roberts’ DARK Act that would make it illegal for states to label GMOs. Anything than less than full labeling of GMOs on a product’s packaging is unacceptable.
The Senate released the newest version of the DARK Act, a piece of legislation that is anti-consumer, anti-transparency, and anti-labeling. It is a bill that is backed by Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and a dwindling number of food companies that are still trying to keep consumers in the dark.
This group, firmly entrenched in the past, has proposed voluntary electronic or QR code for consumers to scan with their smartphones to find out if their food contains genetically-modified ingredients.
There is no way that this is a solution.
This “compromise” is a high-tech gimmick to keep Americans in the dark about what’s really in their food. Thankfully, a petition launched to urge the Senate to reject this confusing scheme and require simple, mandatory GMO labels.
Please reach out to your local Senator (link below). Many of them have kids and grandkids, too. Talk about it in a way that resonates with them as parents.
If you’re not sure what an electronic or QR code is, you’re not alone. The processed and junk food lobby knows consumers won’t know how or won’t take the time to scan every label in the grocery store. It is only something identifiable with a smart phone.
And those who don’t own smartphones — especially disadvantaged and marginalized communities, and rural America — won’t have the ability to find out if their food contains GMO ingredients at all.
“With liberty and justice for all” or just those with smart phones?
This is not equal, and we should not stand for it.
This proposal by the the processed and junk food lobby is unacceptable. Campbell’s knows it and recently broke with the industry to demand mandatory GMO labeling for all Americans. Whose interests is the Grocery Manufacturers Association protecting? Certainly not American consumers, when these ingredients are labeled around the world, in China, India, Russia, across Europe, Japan, Australia, the UK, and on and on.
We must ensure the Senate acts in the interest of all Americans who want GMO food labeled. We must ensure that the chemical corporations making these products are held accountable.
Intel is happy to promote their products with the campaign “Intel Inside.” It’s time for the chemical companies to do the same.
According to a new paper in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, Americans have sprayed more than 2.4 billion pounds of glyphosate in the past decade.
Last year, cancer experts convened by the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
So what did the EPA do? Between 1999 and 2015, the EPA approved a doubling of tolerable glyphosate residues on soybean grain and a 49-fold increase on corn grain.
Since 1993 the EPA has also approved a 2,000-fold increase in the tolerance level of glyphosate residues on alfalfa grown for animal feed.
The agency has also increased the allowable level of glyphosate for wheat—up 5-fold between 2012 and 2015—running the risk of glyphosate ending up in flour.
Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years.
Concern is growing around the world. The President of the Portuguese Medical Association, José Manuel Silva, has called for a global ban on the world’s most used herbicide, glyphosate, over the many health concerns surrounding the chemical.
So how does this impact Americans versus other countries, specifically Europeans? It looks like the image above.
Thankfully, the FDA just announced that they will start testing for glyphosate levels in food.
The South American country is all over the news right now, with stories of health official suspending the use of a mosquito larvicide that Argentine doctors think may be responsible for the surge in microcephaly cases in newborns.
Brazil first made head lines last fall when the Zika virus began to spread there. The country made headlines again when genetically modified mosquitos were released to try to control it.
And now, they are making headlines again, as doctors suggest that microcephaly, the conditions impacting newborns, is instead linked to a pesticide/larvicide that was put into the water.
You have to wonder why it feels like the wild west when it comes to unleashing these products.
A quick look at some numbers tells a story:
According to Forbes, Brazil’s economy hasn’t been this bad since the 1930s.
“The country is facing its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in the United States.”
“The economic, political and fiscal outlooks in Brazil have “deteriorated significantly” in the past few months, according to BarclaysCapital analysts led by economist Bruno Rovai in New York,” reports Forbes
The state-run oil firm Petrobras has been embroiled in a corruption scandal that has led to a political paralysis.
Brazil’s economy is expected to contract by around 2.6% this year, and higher interest rates worsen the situation.
Brazil is the world’s largest pesticide consumer, leading the global consumption of agrochemicals.
On top of that, Brazil is hosting the Olympic Summer Games in Rio this year.
It’s a hot mess.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Argentine doctors’ group says a pesticide, not Zika, may be causing the microcephaly outbreak in Brazil. When an article appeared in the press last week suggesting this link, Monsanto was quick to jump in clarifying that they did not own Sumitomo but that the company is one of their business partners.
In other words, a large percentage of Monsanto’s agrochemical revenue comes from the region.
Brazil is the world’s largest pesticide consumer. The Ministry of Health coordinates the National Drinking Water Quality Surveillance Program (Vigiagua) with the objective to monitor water quality. Brazilian drinking water norm (Ordinance 2914/2011 from Ministry of Health) includes 27 pesticide active ingredients that need to be monitored every 6 months.
A beverage company needs to jump on this ahead of the Summer Olympics. Maybe Oscar Blues Brewery that shipped water to Flint Michigan can also sponsor water for our Olympic athletes heading to Brazil.
And while Monsanto is quick to claim that they have nothing to do with the Zika virus, their financial and business relationships with Sumitomo, the chemical company making pyriproxyfen, the pesticide just banned in a state of Brazil, has everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Common Dreams talking.
Where does the use of this pesticide stand here in the U.S.? It is undergoing a registration review by the EPA. The review began in 2011. An answer is expected in 2017.
“Massive spraying accentuate the problem, the larvae are everywhere.Only 40% of adult mosquitoes are hit by massive spraying and in those low times the density of gnats in ability to bite us, but within 48 hours the mosquito population is restored with the maturation of the larvae that are not reached by the spraying“Climate change, floods, widespread pesticide that killed biodiversity use, allowed the proliferation of mosquitoes by generating ecological niches in which they advanced.”
If Brazil’s political process is anything like ours when it comes to reviewing the risks associated with these products, it may be some time before we have answers.
But any minute, you can expect another group of doctors to appear in the press, refuting the concerns of this neonatal development specialist.
Pesticides are a big part of Brazil’s and Monsanto’s business model, either directly or through partnerships like the one they have with Sumitomo Chemical Company. In January 2016, Monsanto reported that sales in the company’s agricultural productivity segment, which includes its Roundup weed killer, fell to $820 million from $1.25 billion a year earlier.
The South American agrochemicals market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 5.3% in 2015-2020 period. Brazil is the largest country in the region consuming around 40-50% of total agrochemicals.
We are in the early stages of this game, and in for a few innings of “he said/she said” science, before this score is settled.
To suspend the use of this pesticide, given what is happening to babies in the area, like the pediatric and neonatal specialists are calling for, is a precautionary move that parents around the world can relate to.
American food companies love to say that they can’t label GMOs because it’s too expensive.
It’s a lie.
As seen in this image from a London grocery store, American food companies already label GMOs overseas. Families weren’t priced out of Twinkies, farmers didn’t go over because of the labeled Ding Dong, they simply added a few words “Derived from a genetically modified source.”
On top of that, Hostess also warn parents on this label that artificial dyes “may have an adverse effect on the activity and attention in children” because these dyes have been repeatedly linked to hyperactivity in kids.
The food industry knows how these ingredients are impacting our families. They label them for families in other countries, but they sing a different song in America.
It’s time to ditch this double standard. These ingredients impact all children, not just those in the UK. And all families, regardless of income, have a right to know how their food is made, even Twinkies.
The double standard has to stop. Please share this image, so that all Americans can know this information, too.
This year, a record number of food companies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have announced that they are dumping artificial ingredients, genetically engineered ingredients and other additives from their products in order to meet consumer demand in the 21st century.
And just this week, Campbell’s announced that they were breaking with the association and not only labeling GMOs, but also calling for mandatory labeling of GMOs and no longer funding any initiatives that got in front of giving consumers information about their food.
It is a huge move, and the retailers and grocery stores were quick to share their thanks with the company. Why? Grocery stores are the front line. They see first hand that 21st century consumers are looking for more transparency and more food that is free-from artificial ingredients. They see what consumers are buying, and they know that 45% of new product launches in 2014 were non-GMO.
#Dumpthejunk has become the rallying cry, as a growing number of consumers call on companies to remove artificial ingredients, GMOs, HFCS, dyes and other additives, as we find ourselves reading labels because of diabetes, food allergies, ADHD and other conditions now impacting the people that we love.
In the first month of January of 2015, there was such bloodshed when the food industry reported earnings. The new CEO of Kraft was amazed at the company’s lack of insight on the changing face of consumer demand and said, “It’s clear that our world has changed and our consumers have changed, and our company has not changed enough.”
Contrast that with the first week of 2016 and Campbell’s call to action.
This change didn’t happen overnight, and Campbell’s is quickly being recognized for taking a leadership position when the Grocery Manufacturers Association did not.
So why has the association that is supposed to help its members navigate this change so caught off guard? Why has the association insisted that consumers do not deserve transparency into how their food is made? Their position did a disservice to the industry and caught many of the members off guard.
In no way is this more obvious than in the earnings hit so many of these companies took last January. Why didn’t the Grocery Manufacturers Association give its members the heads up? Almost all of its members struggled to meet earnings and were failing to meet consumer demand.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is the voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies, but will it be a relic of the 20th century? And why are these companies slowly peeling off these ingredients one by one in a slow and often reactionary process? It’s death by a thousand cuts.
A question that it starting to pop up is: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association still delivering value to its members? Would members be better served by forming a new organization? What if a new group started? Let’s just hypothetically call it the Food Production Association, and its mission was to meet the needs of companies in the 21st century?
A look back at the history of the Grocery Manufacturers Association suggests this might be a good idea.
But do 21st century consumers actually turn to this organization today or is it a relic of the 20th century? And is it an advocate for its members?
The organization’s website goes on to say:
“A vital role of GMA is to serve as a central resource for our members, providing industry model practices and a means for collaboration between members, retailers and service providers on important challenges and opportunities facing the industry.”
The organization may have done that twenty years ago, but is it still doing that today?
The landscape of health has changed, and it is changing the landscape of food. Today, the rates of diabetes is skyrocketing, 1 in 4 children has a chronic condition, 1 in 13 children has a food allergy, 1 in 10 has asthma and 1 in 68 has autism, with cancer now the leading cause of death by disease in American children. The rates of these conditions are escalating, and parents are reading labels.
Did any of us expect motherhood or fatherhood to look like this? Not at all. No one would choose autism, life threatening food allergies or cancer. No one. But we find ourselves face to face with these conditions every day. It is changing so many things in our lives, and it is changing how we approach the grocery store.
Some companies want to spend millions of dollars debating how we got here. Parents don’t have time. Their hands are tied managing these health conditions. CNN/TIME reported that the additional costs of raising a child with food allergies is $4,200/year. Consumers want transparency and denying them basic information about what is in the food we are feeding our loved ones is out of touch.
Over the last year, more than 60 state laws have been introduced to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Consumers know about it, companies know about it. Companies inside the Grocery Manufacturers Association are producing product lines without these ingredients, and those product lines are profitable pieces of their portfolio. One look at the success of Kroger’s Simple Truth, “free-from” line demonstrates what a brand can do when it removes additives, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup and more.
Consumers want “free-from” food. It’s not about debating the “how” or the “why” we got here. It’s about meeting her where she stands in the aisle of the grocery store, holding onto a child with diabetes or food allergies, or shopping for parent with cancer.
Everyone is recognizing the need for food free from artificial ingredients. Panera Bread recently announced that they are pulling these ingredients from their products, Target’s Simply Balanced has committed to removing genetically engineered ingredients by the end of 2014, and Kroger is seeing record earnings growth with its Simple Truth product line, free from artificial ingredients and genetically engineered ingredients. The brand went from $0 to $1 billion in revenue in two years
So if companies that are dumping the junk are being rewarded by both consumers and the stock market, shareholders and stakeholders, what purpose does the Grocery Manufacturers Association serve by getting in the way of that? Is that in the best interest of its members?
As the Association spends record amounts filing a lawsuit against the state of Vermont which has just taken a big step towards bringing transparency to its food system for its consumers, you have to wonder if this is money well spent for its members. What if instead, these members decided to leave the organization and start another one, one that truly met their needs in the face of changing consumer demand and the changing health of American consumers. Or what if some got aggressive and filed a “loss of business” lawsuit against it given the decline that companies like Kellogg’s are seeing in sales and the resulting employee layoffs as they entrench on the GMO labeling issue?
21st century families want free-from food. It isn’t complicated, and shareholders and stakeholders are rewarding the companies that understand that and are delivering products that meet that need.
They’re not debating the science, they’re not filing lawsuits, they are simply meeting us where we stand: in the aisles of the grocery store shopping for the 1 in 3 American children that now has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism. They are building a new food economy, becoming icons for the 21st century consumer, making the Grocery Manufacturers Association look like a relic of the 20th century.
The $2.1 trillion food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry employs 14 million U.S. workers. As consumers opt out of food loaded with artificial ingredients, demand is growing. From 2013-2018, demand for organic is expected to grow 14%, but in the United States, less than 1% of farmland is under organic farm management which means that we have to turn to countries like China and Romania for non-GMO or organic food. We are literally outsourcing that entire economic opportunity. It is not in the interest of our food companies, our families or our farmers.
If the Grocery Manufacturers Association was true to its mission it would meet the 21st century consumer where she stands, and it would be addressing this supply chain issue for its members. But it’s not.
As it stands, it is quickly becoming a relic of the 20th century, opening the door for another industry organization to form.
Can you imagine if Kroger, Target, Chipotle and other food companies joined together to form the Food Production Association whose mission was to build out a clean and safe food system and to secure the supply chain for 21st century families? Instead of channeling member dollars into lawsuits, it could grow the base of US farmland under organic management, so that we don’t outsource this economic opportunity for our companies, farmers and country to our trading partners.
Cancer, autism, food allergies and other conditions we are seeing in the health of our loved ones are not “trends,” neither is the demand for transparency. American consumers have a right to know whether the EPA regulates their corn as a pesticide or not. Sixty percent of the world’s population has been given that right.
Imagine an organization for the food industry that actually focused on securing a non GMO supply chain for American companies, rather than fight this shift in consumer demand and outsource this economic opportunity to China and Romania. Here’s what a logo might look like. Perhaps it’s time for the big food companies to leave the 20th century in the past and to their consumers in the 21st century.
Can you imagine the kind of food system that we could build if Campbell’s, White Wave, General Mills and others joined Kroger, Costco, Hampton Creek and companies building the new food economy and executed a conscious uncoupling from the Grocery Manufacturers Association? What if these companies got together to start a new organization, one that works for the needs of both 21st century consumers and food companies.
It’s food for thought. On this changing landscape, the field in front of us is wide open.
In a press release issued yesterday, Campbell’s Soup announced support for a national mandatory GMO labeling standard. They are the first major U.S. food company to do this. Perhaps even more importantly, they are withdrawing from groups and efforts that have opposed labeling for years. They are putting their consumers first. It’s a smart move.
Taking personal responsibility for our health is a core American value—our country was founded on the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
By giving this fundamental freedom to their consumers through labeling these ingredients, Campbell’s is making a very patriotic move, and I, for one, hope that it inspires other companies to step forward and do the same.
Here is their release:
Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB) announced its support for the enactment of federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Campbell believes it is necessary for the federal government to provide a national standard for labeling requirements to better inform consumers about this issue. The company will advocate for federal legislation that would require all foods and beverages regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be clearly and simply labeled for GMOs. Campbell is also supportive of a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.
As a result of its decision to support mandatory national GMO labeling, Campbell will withdraw from all efforts led by coalitions and groups opposing such measures.
The company continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by-state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete, impractical and create unnecessary confusion for consumers.
Campbell is optimistic a federal solution can be established in a reasonable amount of time if all the interested stakeholders cooperate. However, if that is not the case, Campbell is prepared to label all of its U.S. products for the presence of ingredients that were derived from GMOs, not just those required by pending legislation in Vermont. The company would seek guidance from the FDA and approval by USDA.
Campbell continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods. The company also believes technology will play a crucial role in feeding the world.
Campbell has been engaged in the conversation about GMO labeling for several years and has taken action to provide consumers with more information about how its products are made, including the presence of GMOs, through efforts like its website www.whatsinmyfood.com. With 92 percent of Americans supporting the labeling of GMO foods, Campbell believes now is the time for the federal government to act quickly to implement a federal solution.
It is a brave and brilliant move by the company and begs the question: “Who’s next?”
But perhaps the most important part of the announcement is that they are withdrawing their financial support from funding the campaigns and efforts that are anti-labeling. It is a huge move.
I had the opportunity to meet one of their VPs a few years ago, and when I sent him a note this morning, acknowledging the company’s leadership, he was quick to reply. It is such an important conversation.
The landscape of food is changing as the health of American families change.
These companies are listening. They are learning that those of us that are asking for more transparency in our food system are doing it because we are trying to protect the health of our families. Campbell’s, like others, is learning that we want food that is free from a lot of artificial ingredients, additives and things like GMOs. They are providing solutions—through new product launches and through labeling – and consumers are responding which in turn helps shareholders.
Taking personal responsibility for our health is a core American value—our country was founded on the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Giving this fundamental freedom to their consumers by labeling these ingredients is a patriotic move on the part of Campbell’s, and I hope that it inspires other companies to step forward and do the same.
Together, we can build a food system that meets the needs of 21st century families. As Campbell’s is demonstrating, we already are.
Carey Gillam, a veteran journalist with more than 20 years of experience covering corporate America, with a special focus on corporate food and agricultural systems and policies, has joined U.S. Right to Know as Research Director. Gillam was previously a senior journalist with Reuters, one of the world’s largest news organizations.
In her role at U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Gillam will coordinate research projects and reports, media partnerships and written communications that represent and advance USRTK’s mission to better inform the public about food industry practices and the industry’s often-hidden role in public policy.
“There is little else more important than the food we eat, and the health of the environment in which we live,” said Gillam. “But too often corporate interests control the narrative about the American food production system, and too often they downplay or ignore the risks while focusing solely on promoting what they see as the rewards. I want to help to level the playing field by illuminating information that people can use when making decisions about the food they consume.”
Gillam has been recognized as one of the top food and agriculture journalists in the United States, winning several awards for her coverage of the industry, and appearing as an expert commentator on radio and television broadcasts.
U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.
A week ago, headlines swirled that the GMO labeling bill that was introduced by the food industry was dead.
It wasn’t true.
It now appears that legislation could be tucked quietly into the spending bill, set for passage before year end.
This bill is controversial in many ways, but part of the concern is the precedent that this piece of legislation would set by taking away state rights.
State rights are critical for our government’s balance of power. Since our founding as a country, the states have played such an important role in setting policy.
If the states see something happening at the federal level of which they do not approve, they have the power to take action. One of the most recent examples of this is the legalization of gay marriage. It happened at the state level first and then drove change at the national level. Another example is the seat belt law. It started at the state level, too. New York State was the first to introduce seat belt laws in the early 1980s. Today, we all wear them. And perhaps most visibly. the women’s right to vote also began at the state level.
In other words, state rights are critically important to protect.
So what is happening here? A lot.
On December 2, U.S. Senator Jon Tester, the United States Senate’s only working farmer, took to the Senate floor to demand that a controversial genetically modified organism (GMO) bill not be included as a rider to the omnibus appropriations bill.
But in a very quiet move that came in conjunction with this jockeying and the FDA’s recent approval of genetically modified salmon, the FDA also announced that the term “non-GMO” could be considered deceptive advertising.
Labels describing food products as “Non-GMO” are a no-go for the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to new guidance released on labeling food with or without genetically altered plant ingredients.
Importantly, the agency did not mandate that manufacturers disclose the use of genetically modified ingredients, and held to its position that GE products are not materially different from non-engineered foods. (We find this ironic, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office grants patents on these products because of their unique characteristics, traits and attributes which have never before existed in the food supply).
The agency did set forth certain rules regarding terminology. The term “Non-GMO,” short for non-genetically modified organisms, conveys an overly broad and inaccurate meaning when applied to food products, the FDA said, as most foods do not contain entire organisms. Instead, the agency pushed for the use of label terminology such as “Not bioengineered” or “This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered.”
“In general, an accurate statement about whether a food was not produced using bioengineering is one that provides information in a context that clearly refers to bioengineering technology,” the FDA explained.”
Note, an accurate statement about whether a food was produced using bioengineering is one that provides information in a context that clearly refers to bioengineering technology.
The law site goes on to say: “The agency provided examples of potentially misleading labeling. A statement could be deceptive when evaluated in the context of the entire label, such as a claim that the product “does not contain bioengineered soybean oil” for a product that is made largely of flour derived from GE corn and a small amount of non-GE soybean oil. Such a statement may require a careful qualification “in order to ensure that consumers understand its significance,” the FDA cautioned.
If the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patents genetically modified foods for their unique attributes and characteristics, in some cases requiring that these foods be regulated by the EPA not the FDA, it appears that the FDA might also want to call out genetically modified foods for failure to disclose, misleading labels and the failure to inform consumers of these material differences identified by the USPTO.
Also problematic are claims such as “None of the ingredients in this food are genetically engineered” when some of the ingredients, like salt, are incapable of being processed through genetic engineering. Similarly, a statement that suggests or implies that a food product or ingredient is “safer, more nutritious, or otherwise has different attributes” than comparable foods because it was not GE may be false or misleading, the FDA said.
Yet it is because of the concerns over material differences that GMOs are labeled for over 60% of the world’s population. So why does the FDA seem to operate under such a different standard?
The FDA said it has no plans to take action against labels making use of the “GMO” terminology, but cautioned advertisers that the use of terms like “GMO free” or “Non-GMO” could face false advertising challenges from consumers. It recommended that “manufacturers not use food labeling claims that indicate that a food is ‘free’ of ingredients derived through the use of biotechnology.”
Why it matters: The FDA’s guidance leaves manufacturers with a choice: they can decide not to disclose the use of genetically engineered ingredients in their products and avoid the headache of using the proper labeling terminology. Or they can opt for voluntary labeling and take a careful read of the final guidance to ensure their claims are not false or misleading.
What is absolutely fascinating here is how the FDA has honed in on this particular term. Consumers are quickly learning that the term “natural”, often used by the food industry on their products, has no legal definition. Several lawsuits have resulted because of the misleading nature of the term and claims by food manufacturers.
But these two aren’t the only terms. If the FDA wants to update its regulations and policies, it needs to look at all of the vocabulary, terms and adjectives currently employed by the food industry.
Because as consumers are quickly learning, “natural” isn’t the only meaningless term that the FDA has failed to define. Here are a few more that don’t have a definition, which again has consumers asking: Why is the FDA targeting only the non-GMO label here?
Terms with no FDA definitions include:
100% Natural
Free-Range
Pasture-Fed
Grass-Fed
Cage-Free
Vegan
No antibiotics
In the absence of any definition from the federal level, some states are trying to define these terms. Some companies are. Again, the lack of movement by the federal government speaks to the important role that states play in helping Americans understand what is in our food system, how our food is made and where it comes from.
Because, right now. We are eating in the dark. Want to let your Congressman know about this? Please contact them using the look up feature below. We can build a better food system together.
One of the most compelling promises that the biotech industry makes to justify the need for their products (genetically engineered crops and portfolio of chemicals needed to grow them) are that these ingredients are needed to feed the world.
Who can argue with that if it’s working?
But it’s not. The United States adopted genetically engineered foods faster than any country in the world. These products are labeled for 60% of the world’s population for their novelty, and not allowed in certain countries. China’s government has even taken such a hard stance against them that Chinese seed companies are dumping their genetically engineered products in the U.S.
It all feels a bit backwards and upside down.
And here’s why: the promise of these products to feed the world is not working here in the U.S. It’s tough to sell this when 45 million Americans go hungry and we throw away 40% of our food. The problem has become so dire that a teenage girl stepped into it, built a model and developed a revolutionary technology to reduce food waste. It’s a real solution to a very real problem.
Recently, there has been a lot of press frenzy around the announcement that the FDA approved genetically engineered salmon. The battle cry from the biotech industry was that this new salmon, regulated by the FDA as a new drug application as seen here, would provide better protein at a smaller carbon foot print to feed the world.
Who wouldn’t want that if it’s been proven true? The problem is that it’s a promise, a forward-looking statement that has been used before and proven false.
Back when Monsanto was releasing genetically engineered soy, the same arguments were used: feed the world, better protein.
But according to Business Week, it turns out that “after millennia when the biggest food-related threat to humanity was the risk of having too little, the 21st century is one where the fear is having too much”.
It’s not just a domestic problem here in the U.S. It’s a global one.
In the U.S., we waste and toss out almost 40% of our food, racking up $165 billion in losses each year.
Let’s step back and think about this for a minute, not just from the comfort of our homes here in the United States, but as a global issue.
How could that food be put to better use? And do genetically engineered crops impact this issue?
The chemical industry is busy manufacturing demand for their products by claiming that we need them—their genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers needed to grow them—to feed the world. It’s their job and a strong marketing strategy.
But are they using scare tactics to get us to believe that we need their genetically engineered, chemically dependent products in order to feed the world. Are we really facing mass starvation without them?
Most of these genetically engineered crops are grown to be fed to livestock. Some goes into ethanol and ends up in our cars. But has it contributed to the global obesity epidemic and food waste?
It turns out that just might be the case.
According to Business Week, “the issue isn’t so much that we can’t grow enough. Rather, existing food supplies are so poorly distributed that those hundreds of millions have too little for their own health, while 2 billion-plus have too much.” On top of that, a third of food is wasted worldwide, spoiled and thrown out before it even reaches consumers.
We are wasting enough food every day here in America to feed the hungry. And while much focus has been on the obesity epidemic, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the fact that with advertisements and food access available 24/7, we’ve got more food than we know what to do with.
Nearly one-third of the fruit, vegetables, grains, meat, and packaged foods produced across the globe gets tossed out every year.
Americans throw away an average of 20 pounds of food each month—costing them each between $28 and $43.
One of the most insightful disclosures of just how bad this food waste and excess of commodity crops has gotten is documented in the movie, Dive! The Film, a film made with Jeremy Seifert and Josh Kunau, that highlights exactly what goes into dumpsters in America. And it is shocking what we throw away.
This 45-minute documentary follows Seifert and his friends as they explore the alleys and backstreets of America’s grocery stores in search of good food tossed away because of overly cautious expiration dates. These guys don’t mess around. They suit right up in their bathing suits and dive right in…to America’s dumpsters, and turn up some of the most amazing information.
Americans throw away 96 billion pounds of food every year, or 27 percent of the total amount of available food. That’s 3,000 pounds of food a second.
But it’s not just us tossing those PB&J crusts out, the main line of food waste tends to be coming out the back end of the grocery stores. And the film shows that a frightening amount ends up being tossed by grocery stores before it can be purchased by consumers.
Now that’s good news for the food industry, as it creates a constant state of demand for their products.
But what if we were to figure out a better business model, designed to deliver all of the food we need without wasting over a quarter of it? What if our taxpayer dollars were used to build a distribution model to get this food to people who need it, like the 1 in 4 American children at-risk for hunger, rather than on farm subsidies which are arguably contributing to this mounting waste?
We have an opportunity to actually build a better food system, one that creates less waste and more nutrient-dense foods. Wouldn’t that be in the best interest in the health of our families, our corporations, our economy and our country?
In the meantime, what can consumers do?
Mine your fridge
Use your freezer
Get creative with leftovers
Compost
Take smaller portions
This isn’t just an American issue. Food waste is a global problem. If you are interested in learning more, please visit: http://divethefilm.com/
