The GMO labeling fight and Brexit

Grace Gershuny
Greetings from Edinburgh, Scotland!

It so happens that my trip to Great Britain coincided with a historic referendum that has thrown the future of this nation (or should I say, these nations) into a haze of uncertainty. Welcome to the age of Brexit, and a political tableau that appears to be a mirror image of this unpredictable electoral season back home in the good old USA. 

The organic community has also recently become caught up in another political wrangle. The blogosphere and twitterverse have been humming with tension along with celebration: July 1 marks another historic event, as my home state of Vermont's first in the nation GMO labeling law goes into effect. Meanwhile, another eleventh hour piece of legislation is being pushed forward in the US Senate that would preempt Vermont's law. This bi-partisan bill includes some provisions negotiated by the Organic Trade Association, tradeoffs that OTA believes make it worth supporting despite it being a "less than perfect" compromise that "we can live with." Many others, including those dedicated anti-GMO activists celebrating in Vermont, are not so accepting.

Vermont's GMO labeling law: DuPont, Syngenta fight disclosure of internal studies

http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_30040998/vermonts-
gmo-labeling-law-dupont-syngenta-fight-disclosure

By Robert Audette

BRATTLEBORO — The Vermont Attorney General's Office is asking a federal judge to force Syngenta Corporation and Dupont to turn over internal studies relating to the safety of genetically modified organisms.

The state is asking the manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds — such as DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Monsanto and Bayer — to turn over any studies conducted into the health and environmental impacts of those products and the producers of foods containing GE ingredients — such as Frito-Lay, Kellog's and ConAgra — to release consumer surveys to see if these companies know what their consumers think when they see the word "natural."

Consumers Union Opposes New Senate GMO Labeling Proposal

http://consumersunion.org/news/consumers-union-opposes-new-senate-gmo-labeling-proposal/

Thursday, June 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced a deal on legislation related to genetically engineered ingredients, or GMOs. The new bill would nullify state laws requiring clear, on-package labeling of food with GMOs and replace them with an ineffective national standard to be set two years from now by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, issued this statement in response:

“This deal is unacceptable to the nine out of ten Americans who support mandatory GMO labeling. Consumers deserve to know what’s in their food and to be able to make informed decisions. They have been clear that they want straightforward GMO labels that they can read and understand at a quick glance when shopping. This law would instead allow GMO disclosure to be done through scannable codes, phone numbers, or websites – making it difficult, if not impossible for the average consumer to find out what they want to know as they try to decide which kind of cereal or snack to buy.

Like Knowing What You’re Eating? Get Ready for Lawsuits

http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/02/188581/knowing-
what-you%E2%80%99re-eating-get-ready-lawsuits

Carmelo Ruiz

The states of Vermont and California have made major strides in defending consumers’ right to know about the presence of genetically modified (GM) content in their food and the toxicity of agrochemicals. But industry wants to punish them for it. 

(FULL DISCLOSURE: In 2012 Ruiz was bilingual social media director for the Organic Consumers Association's Millions Against Monsanto campaign. In this capacity, he worked for Proposition 37, a ballot measure in California that if approved by the electorate would have required all foods with GMO content to be labeled.)

Anti-labeling = Anti science

http://www.gmofreeusa.org/research/gmo-safety/

Though the debates continue, experts agree that there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs. Organizations aligned with the agrichemical/biotech industry often mislead the public with claims of absolute safety when, in fact, the safety of GMOs is fully inconclusive. In the absence of a consensus on the safety of GMOs, it is recommended that mandatory labeling standards be enacted to allow the public a choice whether they consume Genetically Engineered/GM food or not.

As Labeling Vote Looms, Inconvenient Truths Are Ignored, by Carey Gillam

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/gmo-labeling-vote-looms_b_9462068.html

https://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/organic-bytes-500-first-they-injure-us-then-they-insult-us

Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate

TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Insult to Injury First, they injure us with their GMOs and toxic pesticides. Then they insult our intelligence. Unable to reach a compromise and/or get the votes they needed this week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestrypostponed action on a federal bill to preempt Vermont’s GMO labeling law until Tuesday, March 1. But it’s only a matter of time. Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kan.) bill to kill GMO labeling will likely be the subject of a heatedAg Committee debate next week, when Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and others will push for a compromise aimed at keeping Vermont’s law from taking effect July 1. Perpetrators of the bill, which is full of holes according to this latest legal analysis, are having trouble gaining bipartisan support.  Meanwhile USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Rep. Robert Alderholt (R-Ala.) and Rep. Joe Donnelly (R-Ind.) were making the media rounds, spreading lies and fear, extolling the virtues of GMOs, and insulting the intelligence of consumers by claiming that we “just need more education.” Vilsack told PoliticoPro this week that if Vermont’s law isn’t stopped it will "create chaotic circumstances" for the food industry—curious, given that none of the other 100-plus state food labeling laws have ever caused chaos. Later the same day, Vilsack insulted consumers when he told Agri-Pulse:  “This very system-which produces the most abundant, the highest quality, and the most affordable food supply in the world-will be threatened with large economic costs without a national uniform solution to the biotech labeling issue.”  Vilsack also raised the bogus cost issue again, even though it’s been debunked time and again, and finally put to rest by Campbell’s Soup Co.’s announcement that it will label GMO foods at no cost to consumers. Alderholt also chimed in on the “education of consumers." He was quoted in PoliticoPro telling the FDA and other federal agencies that they “need to do a better job educating consumers on the safety of GMO foods.” Ag Committee member Donnelly also spoke to PolitcoPro this week, and like Stabenow, pushed for a compromise that would include a combination of delaying Vermont and/or allowing food corporations to opt for QR codes instead of on-package labels. Stay tuned. TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators today! Tell them no compromise on GMO labeling!  Dial 888-897-0174 to call the Senate Agriculture Committee! If you live in Michigan, contact Sen. Stabenow  More on Stabenow’s role  If you live in Indiana, contact Sen. Donnelly  Donate to help defeat the Senate’s DARK Act

With friends like these

https://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/organic-bytes-499-back-stabbing-gmo-labeling-movement

Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate

TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Friends Like These Last week, we were told that introduction of a Senate bill to kill GMO labeling was “imminent.” When the bill never materialized, its sponsor, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), toldthe press that it “wasn’t ready yet.” Now we know why. It seems that Gary Hirshberg, chairman of the board of JustLabelIt (JLI), along with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), are working behind the scenes to broker an (unacceptable) compromise, and to sell that compromise to the GMO labeling movement. Reliable sources tell us that the compromise Hirshberg, Vilsack and Stabenow are floating is one that would delay implementation of Vermont’s GMO labeling law for two years, while giving corporations the option to adopt QR barcode technology to label GMO ingredients. Any compromise that lets food companies off the hook for mandatory, on-package labels, and preempts or delays Vermont’s law is unacceptable. Such a compromise would sound the death knell for the GMO labeling movement. A two-year delay in Vermont means Vermont’s law is as good as dead. We don’t need this compromise. Roberts himself has suggested that any bill preempting Vermont’s law would likely not get Senate approval—not during an election year, and especially not during an election year marked by a contentious debate over a Supreme Court vacancy. But a bill just delaying Vermont’s law? Thatbill might pass, and be signed into law. We've fought too long and too hard for Vermont's GMO labeling law to let corporate greed and corrupt politics steal this victory out from under us. Hirshberg reportedly is asking members of JLI’s board to support the compromise. We’re asking consumers to ask JLI board members to reject it.  We also will continue to voice our opposition, often and loudly, to Roberts' bill, or any bill that would preempt Vermont. That's where all our efforts should be focused—not on a compromise that serves no one but Monsanto and Big Food. We can only speculate as to why Hirshberg would be meeting with U.S. Senators to convince them to delay Vermont’s law and support a QR code scheme that the majority of consumers reject. Last year, OCA called out Hirshberg for hosting a $2700-a-plate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Clinton is a big fan of Monsanto and GMOs. Tom Philpottreminded us this week about a 2013 Food & Water Watch report revealing that under Clinton, the U.S. State Department conducted a "concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology overseas, compel countries to import biotech crops and foods they do not want, and lobby foreign governments—especially in the developing world—to adopt policies to pave the way to cultivate biotech crops."  Is Hirshberg cozying up to Vilsack and Clinton? Hoping for a plum assignment in a Clinton administration? JLI promotes itself as the poster child of GMO labeling advocacy. We hope its board of directors will stand with consumers and the GMO labeling movement, and reject this ill-conceived compromise. If they don’t, donors to JLI should ask for refunds. TAKE ACTION: Tell JLI Board Members: Don't Stab Us in the Back! Reject the Latest GMO-QR Code Labeling Compromise!  Tweet it!

In defense of labeling

http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis

ENVIRONMENT

How an Agrichemical Industry Mouthpiece Is Trying to Undermine GE Labeling with Bogus Legal Analysis

A recent claim in a Forbes op-ed is flat-out wrong and shows no understanding of constitutional law.

By George Kimbrell / Center for Food Safety

October 2, 2015

Labels, not barcodes

OCA: Will we win in Oregon?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob448.html

Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK 6634 Votes from a Win in Oregon! Don’t believe everything you read in the papers. We have not yet lost Measure 92, Oregon’s initiative to label GMOs. According to the YES on 92 campaign, we are only 6634 votes (as of 5 p.m. Wednesday, November 12) from a win. If we get to within a margin of 49.80 percent (we're currently at 49.78!), we’ll trigger an automatic recount, paid for by the state. But here’s the thing. The only way we can win in Oregon is to contact every voter whose vote hasn’t been counted, because it was “challenged” due to a technical problem. There are enough of these “challenge” ballots—about 13,000—yet uncounted, to swing the election in our favor. We need hundreds of organizers on the ground beginning today, to reach out to voters to resolve problems with their ballots, and make sure their votes are counted. And the only way we can make that happen is to hire professional organizers, and pay travel expenses for volunteers. We are so close. There is no guarantee we will win, but a win is definitely still within reach. If we can get all of the votes counted by the deadline, 5 p.m. November 18. We know you’ve already dug deep into your pockets to help this movement. But today, we are asking again. Through our 501(c) 4 lobbying arm, we have promised to rush another $25,000 to the YES on 92 campaign to make sure we don’t lose this critical GMO labeling battle. If you can help, click here for details on how to donate online now, or by phone or mail. Thank you! ESSAY OF THE WEEK Giving Thanks, Organically In two weeks, families, friends and communities will gather around dinner tables to celebrate Thanksgiving. Leaving aside for now the nuanced political, historical and cultural complications that underlie the holiday, and taking into consideration the different meanings individuals assign to Thanksgiving, there will be one universal thread running through everyone’s celebration on Thursday, November 27: Food. For millions of Americans, unfortunately, the food on their tables will take the form of a turkey raised in filthy, crowded conditions on a diet of antibiotics and genetically engineered corn and soy, with side dishes made from potatoes and beans and other produce heavily contaminated with pesticides, accompanied by highly processed white-bread dinner rolls slathered with butter made from milk produced by cows pumped full of growth hormonesand raised in conditions no animal should be forced to endure. Thankfully, as the market for organic food grows, consumers have greater access to organic alternatives, whether they plan a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, or opt for something other than turkey, potatoes and pumpkin pie. They also have plenty of motivation: better health and nutrition; a cleaner environment; more humane treatment of animals; and a cooler planet. According to reports by the Rodale Institute, the United Nations and the Soil Association, modern, chemical-intensive industrial farming has stripped the soil’s natural ability to take carbon back out of the atmosphere, through photosynthesis, and store it where nature intended—in the soil. By returning to small-scale organic farming, say researchers at the Rodale Institute, more than 40 percent of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be captured in the soil. And if the world’s pasture and rangelands were managed using regenerative techniques, an additional 71 percent of GHG emissions could be sequestered. This Thanksgiving, we ask you to pledge to Cook Organic, not the Planet not just on Thanksgiving, but every day. Because as consumers, we have the power to shift the market—and save the planet. Read this week’s article on why organic is the only way to go for turkey, potatoes, green beans, pumpkin, bread, dairy and wine. Read the essay How to buy a turkey Where to buy organic ingredients TAKE ACTION: Take the Cook Organic, not the Planet Pledge! Post photos and recipes from your organic Thanksgiving ACTION ALERT Innately Wrong About 15 years ago, consumers successfullypressured McDonald’s Corp. to stop buying New Leaf potatoes, a potato varietygenetically engineered (by Monsanto) to produce its own insecticide. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved a new GMO potato. The “Innate” brand is made by the J. R. Simplot Company—the largest supplier of potatoes to McDonald’s restaurants. (The USDA alsoapproved a new genetically engineered alfalfa last week). Simplot wants consumers to believe that its new GMO potato is not only harmless, it provides consumers with several benefits. Among those benefits are the fact that the potato is bruise-resistant (which is really a benefit to commercial buyers and growers, not consumers), and that when heated to a temperature required for frying, the potato produces less asparagine, a naturally occurring amino acid that at high temperatures reacts with some sugars to oxidize into acrylamide. Acrylamide is recognized as a potential carcinogen. In other words, the maker of the Innate GMO potato says it’s not only safe (the same claim Monsanto and Dow make about their GMO corn and soy products), it’s actually better for you than a non-GMO potato. What Simplot doesn’t tell you is that the technology used to create the Innate potato—RNA interference, or RNAi—is considered by some scientists to be even more dangerous than the DNA manipulation technology used to create Roundup Ready and Bt crops. TAKE ACTION: Please Ask McDonald’s CEO Donald Thompson to reject Simplot’s “Innately Wrong” GMO Potato! Photo Credit: arbyreed via Compfight cc

Organic Bytes

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob447.html

PDF | Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Still Counting Despite news reports that Oregon’s Measure 92 to label GMO foods was defeated on Tuesday, the official word from the YES on 92 campaign is: It’s not over. As of this morning, November 9, Measure 92 is trailing 49.73 percent to 50.27 percent. According to the official word from the campaign, a GMO labeling law in Oregon is just 8,300 votes- or just one half of one percent - shy of a win. Although the math looks difficult, the campaign believes there are enough ballots yet to be counted that a win is still within reach. Campaign staff are working diligently to make sure every vote is counted, but it's a slow process. And we may not know the outcome until November 18, the deadline for the Secretary of State to count all outstanding ballots. Whichever way it goes, Monsanto and Big Food outspent us in Oregon by more than 2 to 1, dumping a record-shattering $20.8 million into TV, radio and print ads, and direct mail, to run yet another campaign of twisted truths and outright lies. The Gene and Junk Food Giants also spent big in Colorado—more than $17 million—to defeat Colorado’s Proposition 105 this week, another citizens’ initiative to label GMOs. Conservative estimates put the total spent by the likes of Monsanto and Pepsi to defeat GMO labeling laws, so far, at about $105 million. That number doesn’t include the recordmillions spent lobbying lawmakers. Or the millions spent trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent Vermont from passing a GMO labeling law. What the pesticide and junk food companies won’t spend. Just to hide the genetically engineered, pesticide-laden “foods” they’re feeding you. GMO labeling wasn’t the only anti-GMO issue on the ballot this election. The anti-GMO movement won two key battles this week—clear signs that we are making headway. Voters in Maui County (Hawaii), passed a moratorium on the growing of GMO crops, despite an $8-million campaign waged by the biotech industry to try to stop them. Sources say a lawsuit by industry is inevitable, just as it was in Vermont. In Humboldt County, Calif., voters passed a law making it illegal "to propagate, cultivate, raise or grow any organism (or its offspring) whose DNA has been altered by genetic engineering.” The loss in Colorado is disappointing. But not debilitating. And whatever the final outcome in Oregon, this movement is very much alive. We are nothing if not patient and determined. We have the science, and you, on our side. And we are fired up.