Environmental Outlook: Labels for Genetically Modified Foods
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-03/environmental-outlook-labels-genetically-modified-foods
In 1992 the FDA ruled against requiring labels for genetically engineered foods. Currently about 90% of the U.S. soybean crop and almost 75% of U.S. corn is grown from genetically modified seed, and it’s estimated that more than half the foods in grocery stores today contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered. Biotech companies and grocery manufacturers say genetically modified food is safe to eat and not different from conventional products in any measurable way. However, some believe consumers should be able to more easily avoid genetically modified foods if they so choose and are pushing for mandatory labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients. Join us for a discussion on the pros and cons of mandatory labels for genetically modified foods.
Guests
Thomas Redick
Global Environmental Ethics Counsel
Gardiner Harris
science reporter for The New York Times and author of the mystery novel "Hazard."
Gary Hirshberg
president, Stonyfield Farm, Inc
Program Highlights
The U.S. is the world's leader in genetically engineered crop production. Genetic modifications can boost herbicide tolerance, resistance to insects, and in some cases, add nutritional value. Twenty years ago, the FDA ruled that genetically modified food did not require labels, but some say this ruling hurts consumers who would prefer to avoid eating food with genetically modified ingredients.
The FDA's Rationale
The FDA's decision not to require labeling genetically modified foods 20 years ago basically comes from the mentality that food should be labeled according to what comes out of the process - not the process itself. FDA officials didn't believe that genetically modified food was any different from other existing forms of hybridization. According to Gardiner Harris, the U.S. gets more than 80 percent of its food from abroad. "The FDA inspects one in one million pounds of seafood coming into this country," Harris said. "They are entirely unable to police this global food supply, so it would be very difficult for them to police the process that goes into every single food coming into this country," he said.
Why Is Labeling Important?
Although the FDA couldn't possibly keep up with monitoring a significant portion of food imports, Gary Hirshberg believes that labeling is important for several
reasons. Consumers want to know, and have a right to know, the origins of their food and how it has been processed, Hirshberg said. Further, in most other parts of the world, and most of our trading partners, already require labeling. Hirshberg also believes that the common use of genetically engineered crops has resulted in some serious detriments to our food supply. More (and more potent) chemicals are necessary because the primary trait that has been developed in genetically modified corn is for herbicide tolerance, which allows farmers to use much more if it. In turn, weeds have become more resistant, which has led to farmers needing to use stronger herbicides known as defoliants, which Hirshberg said can be very toxic to humans.
Other Implications Of Particular Food Labeling
Requiring all genetically modified food to be labeled as such would inevitably drive up food costs, according to Thomas Redick. Companies would have to change the labels on their food, and some would voluntarily source non-genetically modified ingredients to put on their labels, which would drive the cost of non-genetically
modified crops up because of greater demand. "That's certainly the case in any nations that have implemented labeling," Redick said. But Gardiner Harris thinks that even with the potential negative outcomes for consumers that Redick said this kind of labeling might bring about, the public is very concerned about its food sources. "There is an enormous focus on food and concern about it," Harris said. "The industry has done an absolutely miserable job when it comes to GMO because the industry really has promised that genetically modifying foods will bring all sorts of benefits to consumers. When, in fact, nearly all of the genetic modification, up to this point, has been to the benefit of processors," Harris said.
Science On Both Sides
"I think in 2012, we ought to have the humility to recognize that we don't know it all, that as we manipulate the technologies, which ideally will have long-term benefits to feed the 9.2 billion people...consumers have gotta have the ability to choose whether to be a part of this system or not," Hirshberg said. Redick disagrees. "It's clear that we'll probably have a mix of sustainable organics, sustainable bio techs, sustainable nano whatever that's going to be in the future agricultural system. And I don't see any place for the government putting labels on any of that if the voluntary system is providing consumers what they want," Redick said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
If the FDA is supposed to be about informing the public and most crops are genetically modified what would their reasons be for not labeling these crops appropriately? The only explanation can be the influence of bio tech companies like Monsanto who do not want these crops labeled. There is no other logical explanation.
Please discuss who is on the advisory board of the FDA?
Can people access which lobbyist accessed the head of the FDA and their advisory board during this process?
http://johnlamattina.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/why-is-the-fda-having-trou...
The gentleman representing the food industry -- Tom, I think -- is coming off as a complete shill. He makes a good point about leading poll questions but the gentleman from Stonyfield and the reporter are really presenting the issue that's important to people today: technology that people don't understand is being used to produce food. Furthermore, people don't really see benefits from the "gm" food and the processors can't really show that the end user is better off.
Instead, from time to time the public hears about problems in the food chain like contaminated vegetables, etc...
Tom's very attitude is what makes very average consumers such as myself more interested in going to the local farmer's market. I can't hold Tom or his peers accountable, I can look directly at the local farmer, try his food (even in front of him) and quickly know if he's reliable.
The industry should stop talking over people's heads about something as basic as food -- people need food and will find other alternatives than industrial processors they can't trust.
Please discuss the 50 FDA advisory committees and who are on these committees
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm
It would have been good for full disclosure of the background of today's guests to inform listeners that the Global Environmental Ethics Counsel is a law firm representing (from Thomas P. Redick's own bio on the website): "Represent[ing] clients in the high-technology and agricultural biotechnology industry sectors with issues relating to regulatory approval". As Missouri resident very aware of Monsanto's base in St. Louis, I was immediately alerted when I heard the location of GEEC - Clayton, Missouri, within the St. Louis metro area. Names such as 'Global Environmental Ethics Counsel' can be deceptive, leading one to think of a broader research incentive, rather than a lobbying firm fully in support of the biotech industries.
Amazing that there is anyone who would NOT want informational labeling for gmo. This is a discussion between those who see food as a thing just like a car, tv, or a light bulb-just a commodity, no different so you can argue costs to the consumer without other considerations. And those who understand that food is basic to life and good health, not just a silly "cultural" thing. Food is too important the human existence to pervert it to the bottom line of major multinational corps.
I have not heard anyone speaking about the Bee population that is slowly disappearing. Can anyone comment on that?
About Mr. Redick's assertion that the surveys commissioned by news organizations were engineered to get a result, whereas the survey question "What would you like to see on food labels that isn't already there?" is much more accurate...
Because the industry has suppressed awareness of GMOs by avoiding labeling, many people are not aware that they are consuming GMOs in their food. The open-ended question measures "unaided awareness," in survey terminology, so Mr. Redick actually was making Gary's point.
It also is a subtly leading question, because it sets the mental frame as food labels and what is already on them.
To complete that thought: a well-designed survey would continue after the unaided awareness question, to measure aided awareness. This question would present a list of possible options, including GMO. Then you would measure awareness as well as the degree of concern about the options presented.
Is it really a concern of corporate farms to feed the whole world? I think not! If it were, perhaps they'd be going throughout the world helping the impoverished to find ways to grow food natural to their environment.
In terms of labeling, when I look at an ear of corn in a supermarket, I should be able to trust that it is CORN and not wonder if it's going to transform me into a mutant just because I do not shop at specialty grocers. Organic should be the standard and experimental GM foods available to those who want them. Corporate Farms are going to grow and breed according to their interests. What may have started out as a way to have steady control and consistent provisions for our nation has become something altogether different.
If they know what's good for them they just decided to vote for a pro-Occupy"third party" in 2012. I'm talking 'bout the 12 million people who hear DRShow, or are they really listening? President Barack Obama appointed a former Monsanto suit to oversea your food, you dopes!! Mitt Romney would recruit Dr. Frankenstheen himself to maximize corporate profits. (Rick Santorum eats fish-farmed tadpole jelly from Bangladesh.)
tamurajenny: You may need Rosetta language DVDs to learn about the "birds and bees" since it is impolite to discuss it in Ameerika. Half the bees are gone, and the rest are on the road between industrialized monocrop orchards and farms. If you want and need bees I'd say investigate doing apiary yourself. The rewards are sweet. That remains possible and legal, but maybe not later. I haven't seen a bluejay since 2010, and I live in their primary range. What's up with that?
I'm almost certain I heard Gardiner Harris, science reporter for the New York Times, describe corn as having been derived (by the Mayans) from a type of thistle. But corn is classified in the grass family Poaceae, whereas thistles are in the sunflower family, Asteraceae. Moreover, these two families are quite distantly-related, differing as they do in a most fundamental feature: the number of cotyledons or embryonic leaves that appear immediately after germination. The Poaceae have just one cotyledon whereas the Asteraceae have two. This makes it extremely improbable that thistles could have been an ancestor of corn.
A very important and interesting topic -however I was not impressed with Thomas Redick. Next time, invite a more unbiased guest to create a more balanced discussion. Regardless, the more I research and learn about this issue, the more strongly I feel that Genetically Modified Foods should ABSOLUTELY be labeled! I have yet to find any good reason for not labeling. Companies need to be more responsible than this. It just seems like it is one issue after another with the food industry!! What a great time to be a gardener :)
Diane I am a long time listener of your program - today the topic hit home - several years ago I researched and subsequently wrote a book on GMO's and Terminator Seeds - entitled "Without Our Consent" I would love to provide you with a copy - keep up the great work and Happy New Year
Tariq Ansaar Aquil
Diane I am a long time listener of your program - today the topic hit home - several years ago I researched and subsequently wrote a book on GMO's and Terminator Seeds - entitled "Without Our Consent" I would love to provide you with a copy - keep up the great work and Happy New Year
Tariq Ansaar Aquil
The book The Unhealthy Truth, by Robyn O'Brien discusses this topic. She also discusses the FDA. Perhaps your listeners would find it interesting the information I learned about Donald Rumsfeld.
To be more concise and to the point I will quote from Wikipedia " During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale.[30]" I had no idea that Donald Rumsfeld was a scientist, oh I forgot, he's not!
There is nothing to fear but fear itself, the truth will set you free, so why is it that our government choose not to label GMO's? And just for a little more information GMO's are NOT ALLOWED IN EUROPE, why? They are outlawed. The US leads the entire planet in the cases of cancer, autism, allergies, asthma, ADHD, watch Ms. O'Brien at the Ted Conference, and shake your head.
My "conflict of interest" alarm went off as well when I learned Mr. Redick was based in St. Louis, had a connection with the Danforth Center, and represented the soybean industry. According to a 2008 USDA data, 92% of soybean acres planted in the U.S. carry a Monsanto trait. Read: 92% of soybean acres get sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate, and likely more herbicides as weeds develop resistance.
In addition, any researcher from a Land Grant University who calls in singing the praises of these herbicides needs a background check on funding source. The President's Cancer Panel Report makes it very clear: avoid foods produced with pesticides/herbicides.
prior to Obama's election, he claimed that "as president", he would demand labeling of genetically engineered food, because "America deserves to know what's in their food".
?
i'm not entirely sure where that passion of his went, as he's been deregulating GMOs regularly during his presidency...
It is an interesting situation... The government and these biotech companies have been working hand in hand for years, and GMOs have relied a great deal on the revolving door between the two organizations.
Linda Fisher, Justice Clarence Thomas, Micky Kantor, Lidia Watnid, Anne Veneman, Michael Friedman, Williams Ruckelshaus, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft (and I'm certain there are others) have been directly affiliated with both the government as well as Monsanto and its affiliates. In fact, some of these positions have been filled by the aforementioned during rather crucial points in GMOs success.
Sadly, from my understanding, the US government has not only deregulated a great deal of GMOs in the past couple of years, but has also allowed biotech companies to research their own GMOs to determine whether they are safe for the public and/or cause any serious harm.
Its actually quite baffling to witness this all taking place... and the complacent nature of the public regarding all of this.
Thanks, Cherie. Information like that is so important to keep out there. It is so disappointing when information like that has to be discovered by the audience as opposed to being exposed by the source itself.
Tamurajenny: it is my understanding that the bee population decrease is a result of many variables regarding improper farming techniques, such as monocrops, pesticides/herbicides/etc, GMOs, etc. not just GMOs itself, though I could be wrong. I suppose it is a chicken-before-the-egg situation, being that most GMO crops are monocrops that use environmentally-harsh chemicals... so... ?
All I know is that bees are detrimental to our survival. In fact, they're essential for sustaining most life on the planet.
Like many others I want to have GE/GMO foods labeled because I want to support growers who do not use GE seeds. Nature thrives on diversity and GE decreases the diversity of crops, if something goes wrong it will be a disaster. E.G. the superbugs that have developed that resist GMO corn - if we have only GMO corn it can destroy most of the crop.
Also, companies like Monsanto should not become monopolies - even if they were completely trustworthy, which we know they aren't.
@Maryann Barnes: I would highly recommend watching the TED.com discussion with Robyn O'Brien. She had a very serious incident occur in her home with her child having an allergic reaction to food. Her research led her to some startling information regarding correlations between such food allergies and GMO foods globally. In fact, when you think specifically of the largest GMO crops/products and the crops/products with the most allergic reactions, they are-in fact- the same.
great comment, can't seem to find mine, but I also referred to Robyn O'Brien
@b23erlin: Hybrids differ from GE foods because GE are forcing genes into particular structures. In the natural world, or even in a controlled environment such as agriculture, plants will or will not accumulate certain characteristics. You can graft items, cross-pollinate, etc... simply pushing along a relatively natural process. But, when it comes to GE, they are manipulating the structures of the cell, and in a lot of situations it is not to enhance a present characteristic. It is permeating the cellular structure with foreign substances, such as chemicals, viruses, or other species' gene structures (ie mixing tomatoes and fish).
Not only are these cellular alterations invasive and unstable, they are showing to have strange reactions in the body. The Institute for Responsible Technology has posted research done on rodents regarding GE food consumption, and severe reactions resulted- Tumors, reproductive disorders, hormonal issues, cancers, digestive disorders.
Also, when these cellular structures are altered to accomodate pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals, there's no positive outcome of that. The plants are then just sprayed heavily with chemicals that degrade the soil, harming the workers and biodiversity of the area. And when you think that washing your produce will remove those chemicals, you have to rethink where the chemicals actually ARE... and in the situation of GMOs, they're actually in the cellular structures of your food. You can't wash that off.
There are a few good reasons why GMO foods shouldn't be labeled. I've copied these from a post I read on biofortified (http://www.biofortified.org/2011/07/gmo-food-is-actually-already-labeled...):
-----
All Food Is Effectively Labeled if You Know A Few Rules
Most people would like GMO products to be labeled. I get that. But, if you know a few rules, they already are in a de-facto mode. For the grain crops, other than wheat, it just isn’t practical to segregate, and it makes far more sense to label only what is non-GMO. We do that and should. Just assume the rest contains GMOs. It is like buying eggs: they all contain cholesterol, but there is no need to say so on the label except for the “whites only” variety and no one would mistake the little boxes for eggs.
For fruits and vegetables it would make sense to proudly label the improved, GMO versions. If they are not promoted that way, just assume they are non-GMO because that is the norm. This is comparable to the reason you don’t have to label lettuce or water that is “fat free.” If you don’t want GMO, don’t buy papaya’s from Hawaii. You could also avoid squash, but I don’t think it is GMO anymore.
For wheat products, actual labeling will be feasible as long as people accept reasonable thresholds for adventitious presence. For now, just know that there is no GMO wheat being grown commercially, so there is no need to label anything (although most wheat products will have some soy or corn ingredients as well).
---
Hope that helps!
Thank you for airing this topic. I have worked for over 40 years in health care as a pharmacist. Even the least dangerous drug requires considerable labeling, even when the studies show there are few or small chances of unwanted side effects. How can the FDA rationalize their position on GMOs? They cannot! We have the right to know what is contained in our food just as we do in our drugs.
The transcript confirms your perception. Harris did claim that corn was derived from thistle. Perhaps Harris is confusing corn with artichokes. The fact that corn was selected from a native grass, teosinte, is basic ag knowledge. Also, teosinte does still grow wild in Mexico, undermining the comment that there is no wild corn in existence.
The fact that GMOs are not labeled upsets me greatly. I do not want to consume GMOs and without labels I can never be certain. I do not feel that DNA that is forced into one species from another is something that our cells recognize as food. I also do not want to consume food that has been sprayed with excessive herbicides and grown in unhealthy soil, which is what GMO food gives us. My biggest concern, however, is that once we figure out that GMOs are unhealthy and cause new chronic illnesses, it will be too late. Genetically engineered crops cross-pollinate with non-gmo varieties and render them extinct. This will have an incredible negative impact on biodiversity. Biodiversity is essential for health on this planet, including humans and non-humans. I grow much of my own food to avoid GMOs but my seed supply is threatened by cross-contamination and GMO-free feed for livestock hardly exist anymore. I fear that the push from these big biotech corporations is due to their desire for domination over our food supply so that we have no other choices - similar to what happened with our oil dependency.