Today, the U.S. Senate voted to limit further discussion of GMO labeling in America, lending support to a bill heavily favored by Monsanto.
65 Senators voted to suspend further discussion, limiting freedom of speech on this important topic, and 32 Senators believed that with 64 countries already labeling GMOs on pack and the food industry already executing on-pack labeling due to state initiatives that further discussion is needed.
These 32 aren’t the only ones. (You can view the Roll Call here).
There are so many ambiguities in the bill that the FDA has criticized it. The ambiguities in the bill are around the language that could exempt most GMO products on the market, the facts that still need to be addressed according to the FDA are the narrow scope of biotechnologies covered, the handing over of jurisdiction to the USDA with a two year window and vacuum, and the lack of enforceability, and penalties for noncompliance.
In other words, there are enormous loopholes in the definitions of GMOs under this bill, who governs the regulation and a lack of penalties. It’s like telling your kids they have curfew but then not checking to see if they were drinking and driving, if they got home on time, and then waiving any punishment should they break the rules.
As Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, said following the cloture vote (the vote on limiting further discussion):
“We’re disappointed that the Senate has pushed this bill forward when important questions remain about potential loopholes that would sharply limit its effectiveness.
The FDA raised issues about language that could exempt most GMO products on the market. Moreover, this bill—which blocks state GMO labeling laws immediately—doesn’t require the USDA to establish the new national standard for two years, leaving a legal vacuum that would undermine GMO labeling already occurring in the marketplace.
We urge Senators to listen to the nine out of ten consumers who support mandatory, on-package GMO labeling and oppose this bill.”
Consumers Union is urging consumers to call their Senators at 1-855-977-1770 to oppose the Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill, and to support meaningful, mandatory on-package labeling for GMO foods. To learn more, visit ConsumersUnion.org/RightToKnow.
When a reputable-sounding nonprofit organization released a report attacking the organic food industry in April 2014, the group went to great lengths to tout its independence.
The 30-page report by Academics Review, described as “a non-profit led by independent academic experts in agriculture and food sciences,” found that consumers were being duped into spending more money for organic food because of deceptive marketing practices by the organic industry.
Trade press headlines blared: “Organics exposed!” (Brownfield News) and “Organic Industry Booming by Deceiving Consumers” (Food Safety Tech News), touting the findings by supposedly independent experts.
The findings were “endorsed by an international panel of independent agricultural science, food science, economic and legal experts from respected international institutions,” according to the group’s press release.
In case the point about independence wasn’t clear, the press release ends on this note: “Academics Review has no conflicts-of-interest associated with this publication, and all associated costs for which were paid for using our general funds without any specific donor’ influence or direction.”
What was not mentioned in the report, the news release or on the website: Executives for Monsanto Co., the world’s leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding, according to emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Monsanto’s motives in attacking the organic industry are obvious: Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals are banned from use in organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto’s messaging is that its products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food production.
Academics Carry Monsanto’s Message
Academics Review was co-founded by “two independent professors … on opposite ends of the planet,” Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus at University of Illinois, and David Tribe, Ph.D., senior lecturer at University of Melbourne. They claim the group “only accepts unrestricted donations from non-corporate sources.”
Yet two email exchanges in 2010 reveal plans to find corporate funding for Academics Review while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden.
In a March 11, 2010 email exchange with Chassy, Jay Byrne, former head of communications at Monsanto who now runs a PR and market research firm, offered to act as a “commercial vehicle” to help find corporate funding for Academics Review.
Chassy discussed his interest in attacking the organic industry in the emails. “I would love to have a prime name in the middle of the organic aura from which to launch ballistic missiles…” he wrote, “I sure don’t have the money.”
Byrne replied,
“Well, I suggest we work on the money (for all of us) first and quickly! I’ve proposed to Val [Giddings, former vice president of BIO, the biotech industry trade association] that he and I meet while I’m in DC next week so we can (not via e-mail) get a clear picture of options for taking the Academic Review project and other opportunities forward. The “Center for Consumer Freedom” (ActivistCash.com) has cashed in on this to the extreme.”
The Center for Consumer Freedom is directed by Rick Berman, a lobbyist who has been called “Dr. Evil“ and the “king of corporate front groups and propaganda“ for his work to promote the tobacco industry and other corporate interests under the cover of neutral-sounding groups.
“I think we have a much better concept,” Byrne told Chassy.
Byrne shared an “opportunities” list of targets comprised of people, groups and content critical of GMOs and Monsanto: Vandana Shiva, Andrew Kimbrell, Ronnie Cummins, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food,” the movies “Food, Inc” and “The World According to Monsanto,” and “topic cross-over on all the risk areas of ag-biotech (out crossing/ contamination, bees, butterflies, human safety, etc…).”
“All of these individuals, organizations, content items and topic areas mean money for a range of well heeled corporations, Byrne wrote, adding:
“I believe Val and I can identify and serve as the appropriate (non-academic) commercial vehicles by which we can connect these entities with the project in a manner which helps to ensure the credibility and independence (and thus value) of the primary contributors/owners… I believe our kitchen cabinet here can serve as gatekeepers (in some cases toll takers) for effective, credible responses, inoculation and proactive activities using this project platform…”
“Sounds good to me,” Chassy replied. “I’m sure that you will let me know what you discuss.”
In an email exchange with Chassy dated November 30, 2010, Eric Sachs, a senior public relations operative for Monsanto, discussed finding corporate support for Academics Review while “keeping Monsanto in the background.”
Sachs wrote to Chassy:
“You and I need to talk more about the “academics review” site and concept. I believe that there is a path to a process that would better respond to scientific concerns and allegations. I shared with Val yesterday. From my perspective the problem is one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying experts to provide responses. You and I have discussed this in the past. Val explained that step one is establishing 501(c)3 not-for-profit status to facilitate fund raising. That makes sense but there is more. I discussed with Jerry Steiner today (Monsanto Executive Team) and can help motivate CLI/BIO/CBI and other organizations to support. The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information.”
CLI/BIO/CBI refers to three industry trade groups — Crop Life International, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and the Council for Biotechnology Information — that represent agrichemical corporations.
Chassy responded to Sachs, “Yes we should talk about Academics Review. I think we are on the same page.”
When asked directly about funding, Chassy replied via email: “Academics Review does not solicit or accept funds from any source for specific research or any other activities associated with any products, services or industry. Academics Review only accepts unrestricted donations from non-corporate sources to support our work.”
He said that Academics Review incorporated and reported no income in 2012 and he provided the IRS form 990s for 2013 and 2014 (now also posted on the website). Those documents report $419,830 in revenues but include no information about contributors. Chassy did not respond to requests to provide that information.
Press Covers “Independent” Attack on Organic
Academics Review released its organic marketing study in April 2014 to a robust round of trade press coverage describing the findings of “independent researchers”:
“The Organic Food Industry Has Been Engaged in ‘Multi-Decade Public Disinformation Campaign’ claims report” (Food Navigator)
“Report: Organic Industry Achieved 25 Years of Fast Growth Through Fear and Deception” (Food Safety News)
“A Scathing Indictment of Organic Food Marketing” (Hoard’s Dairyman)
In the New York Post, Naomi Schaffer Riley built a case against “tyranny of the organic mommy mafia” who are duped by disingenuous marketing tactics of the organic industry. Her sources included the Academics Review report and Julie Gunlock, author of a book about the “culture of alarmism.”
Riley didn’t mention that Gunlock, and also Riley herself, are both seniorfellows at the Independent Women’s Forum, a group heavily funded by Donors Trust, which has bankrolled corporate attacks on unions, public schools and climate scientists.
In the Des Moines Register, John R. Block, a former U.S. secretary of agriculture who now works for a law firm that lobbies for agribusiness interests, reported on the “blockbuster report” by Academics Review and its findings that the organic industry’s secret to success is “black marketing.”
The corporate front group American Council on Science and Health, which receives funding from the agrichemical industry and where Chassy serves as a scientific advisor, pushed the “black marketing” theme in articles by ACSH president Hank Campbell and Henry I. Miller, MD, a Hoover Institute fellow who served as the spokesmodel in commercials for the effort to kill GMO labeling in California, for which Monsanto was the lead funder.
Miller, who has a long history of making inaccurate scientific claims in support of corporate interests, also used the Academics Review report as a source for organic attacks in Newsweek and the National Review, and claimed in the Wall Street Journal that organic farming is not sustainable.
Similar anti-organic themes run through other agrichemical industry PR channels.
In March 2016, Monica Eng reported for WBEZ on documents showing that Monsanto paid Professor Bruce Chassy more than $57,000 over a 23-month period to travel, write and speak about GMOs — money that was not disclosed to the public.
According to Eng’s investigation, the money was part of at least $5.1 million in undisclosed money Monsanto sent through the University of Illinois Foundation to university employees and programs between 2005 and 2015.
“Chassy did not disclose his financial relationship with Monsanto on state or university forms aimed at detecting potential conflicts of interest,” Eng reported.
“Documents further show that Chassy and the university directed Monsanto to deposit the payments through the University of Illinois Foundation, a body whose records are shielded from public scrutiny. The foundation also has the ability to take in private money and disburse it to an individual as a ‘university payment’ — exempt from disclosure.”
In January 2016, Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, reported on emails showing that hundreds of thousands of dollars had flowed from Monsanto to the University of Illinois “as Chassy collaborated on multiple projects with Monsanto to counter public concerns about genetically modified crops (GMOs) – all while representing himself as an independent academic for a public institution.”
“What you find when reading through the email chains is an arrangement that allowed industry players to cloak pro-GMO messaging within a veil of independent expertise, and little, if any, public disclosure of the behind-the-scenes connections,” Gillam wrote.
The last post on the Academics Review site, dated Sept. 2, 2015, is a blog by Chassy explaining that some of his emails would be made public due to the FOIA requests of U.S. Right to Know, which he characterized as an assault on his 40 years of public science, research and teaching.
Financial support from the private sector for public sector research and outreach is “appropriate, commonplace and needed to further the public interest,” Chassy wrote. “Such support should be, and in all my experiences has been, transparent and done under the strict ethical guidelines of the public institutions that are benefiting from private sector or individual financial contributions.”
Three days later, some of Chassy’s emails were first made public in a front-page New York Times article by two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Eric Lipton. Lipton reported that Monsanto gave Chassy a grant for an undisclosed sum in 2011 for “biotechnology outreach and education activities.”
Chassy told Lipton that the money he received from Monsanto “helped to elevate his voice through travel, a website he created and other means.”
Still Getting Press as an Independent Source
Despite the revelations in the emails and the disclosure of Chassy’s financial ties to Monsanto, the Academics Review website and its report attacking the organic industry are still posted online with all the descriptions claiming independence.
And Chassy still enjoys press coverage as an “independent” expert on GMOs. In May 2016, two separate Associated Pressstories quoted Chassy on that topic. Neither story mentioned Chassy’s now-public financial ties to Monsanto.
The National Academy of Sciences needs to urgently address its one-sided work on GMOs say public-interest groups, farmer organisations, and academics. In a letter sent to the Academy’s president today, dozens of stakeholders drew attention to what they called a “troubling trend” at the prestigious scientific institution and its work on agricultural biotechnology.
The letter cites a lack of balance, perspective and independence among experts chosen to carry out a taxpayer-funded National Academy study. These experts will advise the federal government on how to overhaul regulations concerning GMOs—including novel biotechnology products developed using synthetic biology and other techniques, such as DNA “editing”. The new study is being conducted by the National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Future Biotechnology Products and Opportunities to Enhance Capabilities of the Biotechnology Regulatory System.
The Academy’s findings will likely shape how food is produced in the future. However, at least six of the 13 committee members chosen have financial conflicts of interests with the biotech industry, four of which are not publicly disclosed. Several other committee members have backgrounds advocating biotechnology development, including a representative of Dow AgroSciences and Richard Johnson of Global Helix LLC. Johnson, according to their report of 2014-2015, is also head of the United States Council for International Business committee on biotechnology.
The National Research Council’s work on this project meets the definition of a Federal Advisory Committee. According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, government agencies can only use scientific opinions from the National Academy of Science if they emanate from “fairly balanced” committees. These should be free of conflicts of interests—“unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable…”
In contrast to the large presence of industry supporters in the Academy’s work, no strong advocates of the precautionary principle or critics of industry practices were invited to participate as committee members, even though many were nominated. Likewise, no farmers or farmer groups—nor consumers or consumer groups—were invited, even though the focus of the Academy’s work is on agricultural biotechnology and food products.
The complaint comes on the heels of a Food & Water Watch report (Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs) showing structural conflicts of interests at every level of the National Academy. The Academy receives millions of dollars in donations from biotech companies and allows industry representatives to sit on high-level boards overseeing operations.
For decades, scientists and public-interest groups have raised questions about conflicts of interest and potential bias in the Academy’s work on GMOs.
According to Tim Schwab, Senior Researcher at Food and Water Watch “Congress’s instructions are clearly designed to compel the Academy to avoid bias in its scientific work. The Academy cannot expect the public—or policy makers—to view its work as independent given how one-sided this scientific committee is.”
“If you are not at the table you are on the menu” says Allison Wilson, Science Director of the Bioscience Resource Project which is also a signatory to the letter.
Late last week, news hit that a “compromise” on GMO labeling had been reached.The only thing being compromised is the integrity of GMO labeling in America.
This new piece of legislation, introduced by Senators Stabenow and Roberts, has no enforcement mechanism or penalty for violation, making the whole scheme effectively voluntary.
Under this new industry proposal, large corporations would win and American families would lose, and a dangerous precedent is established: states’ rights are trampled.
Not surprisingly, consumers around the country were left to wonder “Whose interests are these guys representing?”
It’s critical that consumers contact your senators today, even if you’ve done it before. They need to hear from you specifically about this “compromise”—It is Monsanto’s dream bill.
We’ve stopped them before, and with your help, we’ll stop them again.
Please call your senators now at 1-877-796-1949.
Yesterday, a letter was written and signed by over 70 groups, opposing this “compromise” given that all that is being compromised are on-pack labels, labels already in place by multinational food companies. The full letter with additional talking points is below.
Thank you for being part of the food movement.
June 27, 2016
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: GMO Labeling Bill – OPPOSE
Dear Senators,
On behalf of the undersigned food safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy organizations and food corporations, and the millions of members we represent across the United States, we strongly oppose the new Roberts / Stabenow legislation on GMO food labeling.
The process that created this legislation has been profoundly undemocratic and a violation of basic legislative practice. The bill addresses a critical issue for the American public, yet it was neither subject to a single hearing nor any testimony whatsoever. Rather, the bill’s preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and municipalities, is the result of non-transparent “bargaining” between two senators and industry interest groups.
As explained in more detail below, we oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. It exempts major portions of current and future
GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.
NO MANDATORY STANDARDS – The Senate bill itself prescribes no mandatory standards for GMO Rather, it preempts the labeling laws of several states including Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Alaska based exclusively on a multi-year discretionary process determined solely by an as of yet unknown, future USDA Secretary.
A VAST NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GE FOODS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY LABELING – Either intentionally, or through poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel definition of “bioengineering” under the bill would exclude from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with genetic engineering, including those where the “modification” is “found in nature,” those in which technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material, and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called “gene-editing” In fact, 99% of all GMO food COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content, it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RURAL, LOW INCOME AND ELDERLY POPULATIONS – The bill anticipates that GMO labeling will be done primarily through QR codes (“digital” labeling). Because of their lack of access to smart phones, more than 50% of rural and low income populations, and more than 65% of the elderly, will have no access to these This impact will fall disproportionately on minority communities. Millions more that do have smart phones may not be able to access these QR codes because they cannot afford to maintain their data service or their neighborhoods do not have adequate network coverage. The study of the efficacy of QR codes outlined in the bill is to take place significantly AFTER any labeling is established and in the marketplace. The results of such a study, if any, may take many years to clarify and codify. Such a “study” provision is clearly not sufficient to absolve the bill of an unconstitutional discriminatory impact.
VIOLATIONOF STATE SOVEREIGNTY BY SPECIFICALLY PREEMPTING GMO SEED LAWS AND POTENTIALLY NUMEROUS OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS – The bill not only preempts state food labeling laws, but also specifically preempts GMO seed labeling laws, such as those in Vermont and Virginia that are designed to help farmers determine what seeds to buy and plant. Additionally, either intentionally or through poor drafting, the bill could be interpreted to be a preemption of more than 100 different state and municipal laws and regulations throughout the nation.
NO ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THOSE WHO VIOLATE MANDATORY GMO LABELING – The bill provides no civil or criminal penalties whatsoever against those not in compliance with GMO labeling The bill specifically excludes the capacity of the USDA to order any recall of misbranded food, even in cases where a product has been produced with genetic engineering but the corporation involved purposely decides to violate the law and not label.
For this and other reasons, including the bill’s definitions being in direct conflict with regulations under the National Organic Food Production Act, the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and the international Codex Alimentarius, the undersigned organizations and companies urge you to VOTE NO on this misguided, inherently discriminatory bill. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Center for Food Safety
Food and Water Watch
Abundance Cooperative Market
Beyond Pesticides
Biosafety Alliance
Cedar Circle Farm and Education Center
Central Park West CSA
Citizens for GMO Labeling
Crop CSA
Crush Wine and Spirits
Dr. Bronner’s
East New York Farms
Empire State Consumer Project
Family Farm Defenders
Farm Aid
Food Democracy Now
Foundation Earth
Friends of the Earth
GMO Action Alliance
GMO Free NY
GMO Free USA GMO Inside
Good Earth Natural Foods
iEat Green, LLC
Institute for Responsible Technology
International Center for Technology Assessment
Katchkie Farm
Keep the Soil in Organic Coalition
Kezialain Farm
Label GMOs
LIC Brewery
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service
Miskell’s Premium Organics
Moms Across America
National Family Farm Coalition
Nature’s Path
Non-GMO Project
Nutiva
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont
NYC H20
Oregon Right to Know
Organic Consumers Association
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
PCC Natural Markets
Pesticide Action Network North America
Presence Marketing
Regeneration Vermont
Riverside-Salem United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ
News Thursday that Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and the committee’s ranking Senate Democrat Debbie Stabenow had sewn up a deal on nationwide GMO labeling left the biotech industry celebrating—but Americans in the dark about the content of their groceries and how their food is made.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents the interests of the nation’s largest biotech, food and beverage companies and has been the chief architect of legislation to pre-empt Vermont’s mandatory labeling law, said Thursday that it “fully supports” the terms of the newly proposed legislation.
Senate Ag Democrats quickly took to social media to try to defend the deal, calling it a “win for consumers.” A prior measure pushed by Roberts, referred to by critics as Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, or the DARK Act, was blocked by Senate Democrats in March.
But consumer advocates who were merely days away from seeing the nation’s first mandatory GMO labeling law implemented—set to take effect in Vermont on July 1—said the bill was no better than the prior version, and they vowed to do all they could to block its passage.
“This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, in a statement. “We are appalled that our elected officials would support keeping Americans in the dark about what is in our food and even more appalled that they would do it on behalf of Big Chemical and food corporations.
The chief objection is that while the bill nullifies Vermont’s law, and any other similar state labeling efforts, it also allows companies to avoid the main thing consumers have demanded – a fast and easy way to determine if a food product they are purchasing was made using genetically engineered crops.
To appease consumer concerns about GMOs, many national food companies have already started providing simple and clear on-package GMO labeling. But under the law now proposed, food companies could avoid any mention of genetic engineering on their packages and “disclose” GMO ingredients through digital codes rather than on-package language. Consumers would be directed to “scan here for more food information” with a smartphone to find information about the food they want to buy. Another option would allow food companies to provide a phone number along with language that states “call for more food information.”
And, while the Vermont law would be nullified immediately, the law gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) two years to finalize a rule laying out the disclosure requirements. Food manufacturers defined as “very small” would be exempt from the disclosure requirement entirely.
The law provides no federal penalties for violations of the labeling requirements. It calls for the USDA to determine the amounts of GMO “substance that may be present in food” to be considered a bioengineered food. Foods that have meat, poultry, and egg products as main ingredients are exempted.
And, some consumer advocates say that a provision setting a definition of genetic engineering, or “bioengineering,” would be limited to such an extent that some interpretations might mean that foods made with herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans, the main GMO crops grown in the United States, would not be subject to the labeling requirements.
Consumer groups are vowing to blitz members of Congress with demands that they block the law, reminding them that this isn’t about politics – it’s about a consumer’s fundamental right to make an informed decision about the food they are buying for themselves and their families.
Many consumers worry that the genetically engineered crops on the market now carry potential and actual risks for human health and the environment. They worry that because most GMO crops are sprayed with glyphosate herbicide, which the World Health Organization has declared a probable human carcinogen, that GMO foods might contain dangerous levels of that pesticide. And they lack confidence in the regulatory and corporate entities that say those concerns are unsubstantiated even though the regulators require no independent safety testing of genetically engineered crops before they are commercialized for food.
The food and agrichemical and seed industry interests have brushed aside those concerns, and have acknowledged that they fear consumers will turn away from foods clearly labeled GMO in favor of non-GMO, natural or organic products.
Consumer advocates accused Stabenow of selling out consumer interests to appease food and big agriculture interests, such as Monsanto Co., the chief purveyor of GMO seed technology. But Stabenow defended the deal.
“For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients,” Stabenow said in a statement. “Throughout this process I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food.”
The Senate is in session next week and could take the bill up, while the U.S. House of Representatives is in recess until after the Fourth of July holiday. Consumer advocates promise not to let labeling go down without a fight.
“This is still completely unacceptable to the nine out of ten Americans who want to be able to understand what they are buying,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at the Consumers Union. “It doesn’t give people the choice they want. What has to be done now is stop this bill from getting through the Senate.”
Now that a deal has been struck in the Senate to revive the idea of QR codes or so-called smart labels as a vehicle for GMO labeling, the stage is set to another Congressional fight on the subject. Lobbyists for the biotech industry will be soliciting votes and we will need to call our Senators and remind them who they are supposed to work for.
George Naylor, who farms near Churdan and is a board member of the Center for Food Safety and the Non-GMO Project, wrote this excellent discussion of why the proposed “smart labels” or QR codes for GMO labeling are just not the right solution.
I come from a long line of farmers and gardeners. On the farm I raise mainly corn and soybeans like almost every other Iowa farmer. But my gardening lets me indulge in many fruit and vegetable options that are beautifully displayed in the garden seed catalogs I get in the mail every winter. My ancestors couldn’t have imagined the diversity and disease resistance offered by the advances in conventional breeding. Fortunately, I have the choice to purchase the conventionally bred varieties rather than those that have been genetically engineered to resist herbicides or kill pests, because I select from catalogs that say categorically they do not and will not sell seeds that are genetically engineered.
I have also made the choice not to raise genetically engineered corn and soybeans. Why? Well, rather than boosting rural economies, genetically engineered crops have drained billions of dollars from them—the temporary ease of weed control has led to even more farm consolidation; and the unbelievable power of the herbicide glyphosate to kill both annual and perennial weeds has destroyed food and nesting resources for many of our important insects and birds. Farmers have spent billions of dollars on genetically engineered seeds only to see weeds become resistant to the glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops. Corn rootworms, too, have become resistant to the most common insecticidal proteins included in many GMO corn varieties. These resistance problems require even more application of herbicides and pesticides that threaten the health of rural Americans—glyphosate was recently recognized by the World Health Organization as a “probable carcinogen”—and add to chemical residues in food products.
Altering the genetic building blocks of plants and animals, which in turn alters the building blocks of our ecosystem, rightly concerns many Americans. National polls consistently show that 90 to 95 percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, because they want to know what is in the food they eat and feed their families.
And we should have the right to know when a food product contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, especially as they carry greater and greater residues of this probable cancer causing chemical. Some states such as Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have voted to mandate this labeling. But Congress is trying to preempt these states from giving their citizens what they have asked for.
The latest ploy is so-called “smart labels.” This is the most recent attempt by big agribusiness, the giant food processors and members of Congress who submit to their lobbying pressure to keep customers in the dark about what’s in our food. Instead of a simple declaration in plain language on the product, a smart label will require scanning each item with a smart phone. Besides the unbelievable time and inconvenience involved, many Americans don’t have smart phones and can’t afford them. More than half of rural Americans don’t have smart phones, let alone the network coverage required to access the information.
You see, there is nothing smart about smart labels. In fact, they would make product information more difficult to access, are deeply discriminatory, and potentially set a dangerous precedent that could allow all labeling and nutritional information to be removed from packaging in the future, available only through the same discriminatory technology.
We are in the dark simply because a handful of multinational agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $100 million over the past three years to fight the consumer’s right to know, and now are pushing senators from both sides of the aisle to endorse discriminatory smart labeling. Sadly, many who we’ve depended on in the past to represent rural interests, like Sens. Stabenow, Klobuchar and Heitkamp, so far seem to be siding with the chemical/seed corporations and the food giants instead.
Voters and consumers have enough to keep us awake at night; we don’t need to be worrying about what’s really contained in the food we put on our tables. Tell our elected officials that we have a right to know what is in our food and to make informed choices about the products we purchase.
Originally published at the Des Moines Register and reposted with the author’s permission.
The biotech industry wants you to believe that their products, their newly patented genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of industrial agrochemicals needed to grow them, are essential to feeding the world.
It’s a great headline, often repeated, but is it true?
If you take a look at the actually data of how GMOs are used, it turns out that GMOS are actually used to fuel cars, create processed foods, and to feed animals in the United States.
The world? Well, that part isn’t exactly true.
GMOs are now present in 80% of conventional processed food in the U.S. According to the USDA, during processing, corn is either wet or dry milled depending on the desired end products. Wet millers process corn into high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose and dextrose, starch, corn oil, beverage alcohol, industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol.
Amazingly, the USDA boldly states: “Government programs have been instrumental in the development of the HFCS markets.” In other words, our taxpayer dollars are hard at work making processed foods. Corn crops receive enormous subsidies and financial aid. Veggies? Less than 1%.
And as for the alternative fuel in our cars? 28% of U.S. soy goes into fuel production and about about 40% of US corn production goes to make ethanol.
And as far as feeding animals? 70% of U.S. soybeans and 48% of U.S. corn go into livestock, poultry, and fish feed (2)(3) through commercial and on site feed productions. Today, those same animals now account for 80% of antibiotic use in the U.S.
So is the genetically engineered corn and soy making them sick? And do Americans really need to be taking this risk?
Due to GMO crops being used mainly to feed animals, any animal products not certified USDA organic or Non-GMO verified are very likely to be the product of GMO fed animals. Generating awareness for this issue is another hurdle for conscious consumers, but it is essential that consumers recognize that most products in the grocery store derived from cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, fowl, fish, and other common livestock animals are influenced by genetically modified crops. On top of that, the escalating applications of glyphosate, declared a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization, mean that you are getting more than you bargained for every time you meat-up.
According to Forbes, “With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue. Groups around the world oppose biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately affect the poor.
In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC).”
When you actually understand the financial incentives behind the biotech industry, you can see that their promise to “feed the world” is really just PR spin for a promise to feed their bottom line.
GMOs and the portfolio of chemicals required to grow them don’t actually feed the world. They do feed shareholder return. Or at least they did until the world started catching on to this PR spin.
To bring complete clarity to the PR play here, Forbes recently stated:
“The grain required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding in 2000.”
Bottom line? We don’t need GMOs to feed the world.
We simply have to stand for smarter policy.
For more on the pervasiveness of GMOs in animal feed, read on.
Cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved. When health concerns about cigarettes began to receive public attention in the 1930s, tobacco companies took preemptive action. They capitalized on the public’s trust of physicians in order to quell concerns about the dangers of smoking. They created what is now known as “tobacco science.”
From Hematology/Oncology: “For a long time, physicians were the authority on health. Patients trusted in their doctors’ education and expertise and, for the most part, followed their advice. When health concerns about cigarettes began to receive public attention in the 1930s, tobacco companies took preemptive action. They capitalized on the public’s trust of physicians in order to quell concerns about the dangers of smoking. Thus was born the use of physicians in cigarette advertisements
“When you knit this together into a full story, the scope of it and the way it duped the public was just incredible,” said Robert K. Jackler, MD, Sewall Professor and Chair, otolaryngology—head and neck surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. “The public was becoming increasingly worried about the health consequences of cigarettes. They started to refer to cigarettes as coffin nails and started talking about smoker’s cough and smoker’s hack. The companies saw a threat to their success and business model.”
A generation later, we are now dealing with “food science” in the same way that our grandparents had to deal with “tobacco science.”
Every month, it seems that a new study appears to swing us one way or the other. It’s a “he said, she said” battlefield right now, making it all the more important that we have complete transparency around our food until the science is settled. That includes knowing how much pesticide is being applied to our foods, whether or not they are genetically engineered (given that some GMOs are regulated by the EPA as a pesticide and some require increased applications of glyphosate, a “probable carcinogen” according to the World Health Organization.).
Rick Friday, the cartoonist fired for speaking truth to power, highlights all of this once again, in this cartoon.
As the World Health Organization releases coffee from its carcinogen list, Roundup, Monsanto’s signature product, remains on it.
If you had a choice to sprinkle Roundup across your children’s breakfast or onto their dinners, would you? If you had a choice to spray it into your soy milk or onto your corn, would you? The sign on the bottle says, “Keep Out of the Reach of Children.”
Americans should be given that choice, and GMOs should be labeled here the way that they are in Europe, China, India, Russia, Brazil and over 60 other countries around the world.
We’re not asking for anyone to reinvent the wheel, we’re just asking for the same transparency into how our food is made that all of our key trading partners enjoy.
After an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences issued a long-awaited report on genetically engineered foods, much of the news coverage said it gave GMOs an unqualified seal of approval. In fact, the report pointed to an array of concerns and unanswered questions. Here are the top ten findings of the report that most traditional and social media missed—or got plain wrong.
You can’t generalize about GMOs. The panel was careful to say you can’t generalize about genetic engineering, and we should instead be looking at each product (or new trait) to assess the benefits and costs, not the process. The report warns against making sweeping generalizations, such as assuming all GMOs are safe.
Some traits may not be safe. While the report found no evidence that a handful of currently commercialized traits pose food safety risks, the panel was careful to say other traits could pose risks.
Allergens are hard to detect. In particular, the panel found that technology providers and regulators could miss potential allergens and called again for post-market testing.
The GMO regulatory process is broken. The report found many flaws in the GMO regulatory process and called for regulatory reforms as well as more research.
GMO crops do not increase crop yield. The panel explained why GMOs don’t—and never were designed to—increase yields, and also found no evidence that GMO crops are actually increasing yields.
Herbicide use is up and headed higher. Although insecticide spraying has gone down on Bt corn and cotton, the use of herbicides on GMO crops (some of which are engineered to withstand applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsnto’s Roundup) has been going up and will keep increasing. In recent years, farmers have been forced to turn to mixtures of weed killers as weed resistance spreads.
Herbicides may be dangerous. Though the panel said herbicide toxicity is more important than volume, the panel punted on the question of whether glyphosate or other weed killers increase the risk of cancer and other health problems.
Regulators should have more power. To address rising herbicide use and help manage weed resistance, the panel said regulators should be able to impose requirements on farmers to address unforeseen risks.
GMO labels make sense. Without GMO labels, consumers can not make food choices that reflect their values, the panel found. The consumer’s right-to-know is ample reason to require a mandatory GMO label.
Environmental impacts could be big. Are GMO crops affecting monarch butterflies and other species? More research is needed, including a life-cycle analysis of the monarch butterfly. Future GMO crops could also lead farmers to plow up grasslands, increasing carbon pollution.
At one of the public brainstorming sessions for the New York Organic Action Plan, an organic farmer made an impassioned plea for support for “independent science” and told us that with 8.5 billion mouths to feed by 2050, we will need genetic engineering to prevent starvation.
I would like to examine these words carefully to decipher what they mean, how those words are used by this farmer and by others, and suggest how the movement for locally grown organic food in this country should respond.
What is the meaning of ‘independent science’? As co-chair of the Policy Committee for the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), I have been an active participant in the coalition that is campaigning to pass GMO labeling legislation in NY State. In this capacity, I have spoken at public meetings, to the press and on radio interviews. A question that I have heard from proponents of biotechnology is “why do you organic farmers oppose science, like the climate deniers?”
The first time I heard this, I was startled and felt defensive. Had I ever opposed science? I searched back through things I had written and reviewed all the policy resolutions the members of NOFA-NY had passed over the years. I found a few places where I criticized reductionist science and defended “indigenous knowledge” (that is things like composting and crop rotations that people who practice a craft know and pass on to their children that has not been proven by research at a university). But nowhere could I find any statement opposing science. Just recently, I reviewed with approval this statement from an organic farming group:
“We support the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement’s (IFOAM) definition that organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.”
My farm has cooperated in any number of research projects with Cornell University scientists. We have tested cover crops, held a field day with the Cornell soil health group to allow them to demonstrate the ways a farm can test for biological activity, use a penetrometer, and a rain simulator that shows how much aggregate stability the soils have. We spent 7 years working with Molly Jahns and her team on breeding a variety of sweet pepper. It is earlier ripening, cucumber mosaic virus resistant, and is open-pollinated (and now bears the name of our farm—Peacework!). I served for four years on the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program technical committee and three years on the administrative council. Unlikely activities for someone who is against science.
So what does this question about independent science really mean? I have come to understand that by “science” the biotech folks mean genetic engineering. They are deliberately conflating these two terms. And that seems to be how the farmer at our meeting was using the words too.
Science vs. Commercialization
So since I do not oppose science, do I oppose genetic engineering? Yes and no. I share with geneticists their fascination with the functioning of the tiniest of particles that make up living matter. One of my favorite books is A Feeling for the Organism (by Evelyn Fox Keller, 1984), a biography of Barbara McClintock (1902-1992), a cytogeneticist who specialized in corn. McClintock was one of the first to map the corn genome. She demonstrated that genes turn physical characteristics on and off and discovered genetic transposition or “jumping genes.” She shook the notion that science held as a truth that the genome is a stationary entity with the genes in an order that is unchanging by showing that it is subject to alteration and rearrangement. For many years, the mainstream of science regarded her with disapproval only eventually to catch up with her and then heap honors on her great discoveries. Science lurches forward—and a great leap is yet to be made for a full comprehension of the relationship between genes and the environment.
The more geneticists look into it, the more complex the relationship of genes to physical traits turns out to be. As Jonathan Latham puts it:
“a defined, discrete or simple pathway from gene to trait probably never exists. Most gene function is mediated murkily through highly complex biochemical and other networks that depend on many conditional factors, such as the presence of other genes and their variants, on the environment, on the age of the organism, on chance, and so forth. Geneticists and molecular biologists, however, since the time of Gregor Mendel, have striven to find or create artificial experimental systems in which environmental or any other sources of variation are minimised so as not to distract from the more “important” business of genetic discovery.
“But by discarding organisms or traits that do not follow their expectations, geneticists and molecular biologists have built themselves a circular argument in favour of a naive deterministic account of gene function. Their paradigm habitually downplays the enormous complexities by which information passes (in both directions) between organisms and their genomes. It has created an immense and mostly unexamined bias in the default public understanding of genes and DNA.” (Latham, op cit)
McClintock’s story reveals how hard it is for the scientific mainstream to accept new concepts. This becomes especially difficult when large commercial entities like chemical/seed corporations build their empires on an interpretation of a scientific phenomenon. And even more difficult when our universities are starved for public research funds and become dependent on corporate support.
I am not against genetic engineering in principle, nor is the organic movement internationally. What we are against is the rush to commercialize crops that have not been adequately tested for safety. There is so much we do not know about them. When you move one gene, many other genes shift and geneticists do not know enough yet to predict the results (Wilson et al., 2006). That is why standards for organic certification in the US and all around the world do not allow the use of genetically engineered seed or other materials like GE rennet in cheese. In regulating any novel technology, we should follow the precautionary principle. Test carefully and at length before commercializing. This has not been done with GE crops. Every cultivar is different and each one should be tested individually (Maffini et al., 2013; GAO, 2010).
Meanwhile, corporations like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, etc. have been commercializing a very few money-making GE cultivars that farmers are growing on millions of acres that are doused with toxic chemicals.
The scientific evidence shows that the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops in the US has led to: 1) an increase in pesticides used in agriculture, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program; 2) development of herbicide resistance in over 20 weed species; 3) insecticide resistance in target pests, including corn rootworms; 4) increased residues of pesticides in foods, including Roundup, a probable human carcinogen; 5) loss of biological diversity, including Monarch butterflies, and 6) massive increases in seed costs for farmers (Huber, 2011).
“Seventy crops are on the EPA list, ranging alphabetically from alfalfa and almonds to watermelons and wheat. Glyphosate used on soybean fields, on an annual basis, is pegged at 101.2 million pounds; with corn-related use at 63.5 million pounds. Both those crops are genetically engineered so they can be sprayed directly with glyphosate as farmers treat fields for weeds. Cotton and canola, also genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant, also have high use numbers. But notable glyphosate use is also seen with oranges (3.2 million lbs.); sorghum (3 million lbs.); almonds (2.1 million lbs.); grapes, (1.5 million lbs.); grapefruit and apples (400,000 lbs. each); and a variety of fruits, vegetables and nuts.”
Since 1974, farmers have poured 1.8 billion kilograms of Roundup on fields (Benbrook, 2016). While independent studies of the safety of GE foods are scarce (because the owners of the Utility Patents of GE plants refuse to allow truly independent research), there are many studies of Round-Up and its main ingredient glyphosate that show it attacks the beneficial organisms in the human digestive system, causing serious health problems – increased birth defects, neurological developmental problems in children, kidney failure, respiratory problems, allergies (Sparling et al., 2006;Benedetti et al., 2013; Lopez et al., 2012; Mesnage, et al., 2015Marin-Morales et al., 2013;Gress et al., 2015). Studies show that Roundup is a powerful soil biocide, resulting in the increase of microbial plant pathogens and mycotoxins (Johal and Rahe, 1988; Fernandez et al., 2005;Kremer and Means, 2009; Johal and Huber, 2009).
The use of GE crops is part of the whole package of industrialized farming, an integrated system that enables corporate control of our food system (for the results of this see Fig 1 Glyphosate Tolerance Levels since 1993; taken from Benbrook, 2016).
Glyphosate tolerance levels since 1993 (EPA)
Fast-tracking corporate control
There has been a speed-up in farming—a grain farmer used to be able to support a family with 160 acres. Now it takes 1600. The Roundup-GE package goes with the speed-up. And US government regulation has failed to protect the public from the toxic herbicides that farmers spray on GE crops.
One selling point of Roundup is that it breaks down quickly. That is why you can purchase it off the shelf in garden/hardware stores. That is accurate—it does break down quickly. But what Monsanto does not mention is that Roundup breaks down into AMPA, which lasts much longer and may be more toxic than glyphosate. (Torstensson 1985; Torstensson et al., 1989; Andréa et al., 2003; Battaglin et al., 2014).
Recently, the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, and many studies since 1985 have shown it to be an endocrine disruptor. But that did not stop the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 from increasing the amount of glyphosate that is considered safe as a residue in soy beans, corn and other crops (see fig.).
It is extremely unscientific and poor public policy for the patent office, a federal agency, to grant billions of dollars of utility patent rights for GE technology based on a demonstration of material difference, and for FDA, another federal agency, to be simultaneously denying consumers basic information about the use of that technology in their food, based on that agency’s finding of a lack of material difference.
Internal FDA documents obtained by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity during a 1998 lawsuit against the agency reveal that the FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator, James Maryanski, knew full well the potential risks but chose to override them. A November 1, 1991 memo to Maryanski titled “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods. Supplemental Information”, detailed the potential problems with new genetically engineered crops:
“increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g. pesticides or heavy metals) and undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.” (cited in Druker, 2015).
Despite this, the FDA claimed, and continues to assert that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe and has classified them as “generally regarded as safe” or GRAS under current FDA guidelines.
The utility patents which Monsanto and other corporations hold on seed give them control over every use of that seed—including research to test it for safety. Farmers are not allowed to save and share the seed. University scientists must have permission from the patent holder and have to pay royalties to do research on patented seed. That is a significant barrier to independent science. By contrast, the Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI) allows seed purchasers free use of the seed and asks for a pledge
“not to restrict others’ use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this Pledge with any transfer of these seeds or their derivatives.” (FEDCO 2016 catalogue, p. 3).
Unfortunately, we do not live in a sweet world where researchers are free to work for the people and the earth and where decisions on what research gets funded are made purely on the basis of which projects benefit the largest number of poor and hungry people in former imperial colonies.
Propaganda, economics and the need for cooperation
Just as the biotech proponents conflate “science” and GMOs, I and the organic movement conflate our struggle for family-scale, local, organic or agroecological agriculture and against corporate control with the fight against gmos. Buying Roundup Ready seed is not a free choice for farmers. Using that seed ensnares the farmer in Monsanto’s clutches.
There are economic issues here as well. Major Goodman of North Carolina State University, a respected corn geneticist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, stated in testimony before the National Research Council that conventional breeding typically costs about $1 million per trait, while genetic engineering costs $136 million per GE trait, with most of the cost due to research and development, not to regulatory expenses.
If we could assemble a council of farmers and scientists to evaluate the most cost-effective ways to invest public resources to eliminate world hunger, it is doubtful that they would choose genetic engineering. The 2008 United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a comprehensive report on the future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that yields of GM crops were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The IAASTD concluded that since 70% of the world’s population is fed by small farms, many run by women, the best course would be to increase investments in agroecology (IAASTD, 2009).
That means doing the kind of work that the organic farmers of the Northeast (under the auspices of NOFA and MOFGA) have been doing for over four decades—helping family-scale farmers, homesteaders and gardeners learn more about how to produce the healthiest, most nutrient dense food using local resources and providing ways for them to share this learning with one another. Farmer to farmer—campesino to campesino. Scientists who respect the “indigenous” knowledge of farmers can help the way Molly Jahns’ team did in the Peacework pepper breeding project.
If some of the millions spent on genetic engineering were directed to farmer-scientist organizations like Masipag (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development) in the Philippines and the National Organic Agriculture Movement of Uganda (NOGAMU), there would be much more progress towards local self-reliance.
I am totally with the organic farmer who declared at our meeting that agriculture needs applied research and technology and that our Land-Grant universities should invest in applied research programs to find the solutions to the complex problems facing farmers today. The division of farmers into two camps—organic and conventional—is destructive and prevents us from learning from one another. It would help all farmers if the USDA research apparatus had funding to support organic research programs at higher levels than the current barely 2 percent of all USDA research dollars.
So at this time, I do not think the organic movement should drop our opposition to allowing certified organic farms to use GE crops. We should continue to campaign for labeling GMOs. We should call upon Cornell to disband its propaganda arm for GMOs—the Alliance for Science—or repurpose it under the guidance of a board that represents the interests of the people of NY State. We should not oppose continuing research in genetic engineering, but we should demand that equal resources go into agroecology. Independent Science is a great concept. Let’s work together with conventional farmers for applied research that keeps our farms in business and allows us to grow the healthiest food for all the people while regenerating our soils and arresting climate change.
PS.
I urge defenders of GMOs to read Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, by Steven M. Druker (Clear River Press, 2015).
