With the election looming, there has been a lot of media attention on the presidential race, and on several key Senate races. One election that you may not have heard much about concerns a California ballot initiative that could have a huge impact on your right to know what is in your food. Proposition 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. Prop 37 has been endorsed by many independent groups including the California Nurses Association, the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, and the California Council of Churches.
Because California is such a large market, the impact if this proposition passes would be huge. Most companies would probably choose to label everything they make, rather than have separate labels for products sold in California.
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature. Many processed foods contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but it’s hard to know which ones without labeling.
Are GMO’s safe? No one can honestly say, because little independent research has been conducted. Some of the research that has been done raises serious questions. Just last month, a very credible study came out of Europe. This study, carried out by researchers at Caen University in France, was the first lifetime feeding trial involving rats fed GM corn. It found an increased incidence of breast tumors, liver and kidney damage.
What distinguishes this particular study is that it looked at the impact of eating GM corn over an entire lifetime. Incredibly, this has never been done! Prior studies purporting to establish the safety of GM corn were based on feeding trials lasting only 90 days.
Early surveys showed close to 70% support for the GMO labeling initiative. However, opponents, led by companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical, have amassed a $40 million war chest, and will likely outspend supporters by 10 to 1 in the weeks before the election. Will big money trump this grass roots push for informed choice? We’ll see.
If Prop 37 doesn’t pass, it may give a boost to a growing voluntary “certified non-GMO” labeling movement. The non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization that has developed a program of third-party verification that foods are GMO free. Products that meet their rigorous standards may display the certified non-GMO seal. In the last 2 years, over 6000 products have qualified as certified non-GMO. Non-GMO certified foods are one of the fastest growing categories in grocery and natural food stores.
Other states besides California have GMO labeling initiatives in the works as well. A group in Washington state is close to having the required signatures to put labeling before the voters there next year. It appears that the growing desire by consumers to know whether genetically modified ingredients are in their food means GMO labeling is an issue that won’t go away, not matter what the outcome in California.
• Ottoson owns Rainbow Foods and has a long time interest in food issues.
Comments (13)
Add commentTorn on this one
The implication from David's piece is that all GMOs are bad. Some may be. The term GMO is so broad, that it's impossible to say. Most likely, most of them are harmless. But anything with GMO on the label will be blacklisted. And obviously David has a business interest in demonizing GMOs.
In a world with shrinking resources and a changing climate, GMOs may offer a lifeline. GMO plants can be altered to survive droughts, grow in brackish waters, survive higher temps, and require fewer pesticides. These seem like positive advances.
Yes, they should still be studied and tested. And I have issues with the patent rules that the likes of Monsanto and ADM enforce on their seeds. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Anti-Vax and Anti-GMO: different goals, same methods
Science based medicine has an article by the same title here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antivaccine-versus-anti-gm...
This letter is less shrill than I expected and focuses, rightly imho, on the simple request to have such products labeled. Full stop. In principle I could get behind that.
However, the article continues beyond that scope and then fails to address the methodology of the mouse study in question. Hint: the study is fishy. Franken-fishy. Scratch that. The study stinks like a three day old, open-lid tote of fetid frankenfish ripening in June.
Have a looksie yourself.
Mike
PS I like Dave's store. In fact if I lived in town, I'd probably eat lunch there daily. I just disagree with where he's taking this subject. It's reminiscent of the fluoride fiasco. And speaking of that, I'm disappointed that so very few dentists joined the other healthcare providers to support the science on that issue.
GMO FOODS
GMOs are doing nothing, but making Monsanto Chemical rich; as they continue too destroy what is natural in the world!
"In a world with shrinking
"In a world with shrinking resources and a changing climate, GMOs may offer a lifeline. GMO plants can be altered to survive droughts, grow in brackish waters, survive higher temps, and require fewer pesticides. These seem like positive advances."
Although these seem great advances I still suspect some of the testers may be motivated by profits and kickbacks instead of the health and safety of consumers. Cutting corners in order to rush products to market is a common practice. We really won't know if these modifications will be safe over the long term and cause pests and weeds to develop that can't be controlled. But, is a label going to solve that problem?
Realistically, I doubt labling will change very much about America's eating habits. We buy based on taste and price for the most part. Those of us that want to avoid highly processed foods will grow or buy organic anyway.
This subject is near and dear
This subject is near and dear to my heart - I, personally, don't wish to eat GMO foods. "Just label it" and let the consumer choose. It's pretty simple.
"Found in nature"
Much of the food that's grown today isn't "found in nature". It has been heavily modified genetically through advanced breeding and hybridization. Most of it couldn't survive without pesticides, fertilizers, and artificial irrigation. Much of it requires preservatives or artificial refrigeration to get it to us.
I choose to catch and gather my own, grow my own, or eat organic whenever possible. But I recognize that I can't avoid a certain amount of artificiality in the food I consume.
JNUKara, question about your GMO reservation
Can I ask why you don't wish to eat GMO foods? Is it a perceived health risk? If so, can you pass along the evidence that informs your decision?
Or, is it something else? Not wanting to support certain companies? Both? Something else?
Thanks,
Mike
@MIKE
Mike just google the heath risks of GMO foods. There is lots of evidence of health risks
Health risks?
billB, don't I take a risk drinking a glass of pristine fossil water considering I might choke if I drink it incorrectly? Of course, it's virtually an insignificant risk considering I don't have dysphagia or similar problems.
There certainly is an economic risk to my fiscal well being as ancient, designer water is pricey. And there are those who would say there is an environmental health risk using non-renewable fuels just for jet-setting BPA-free bottles.
So, what exactly do you mean by "health risks?" Presumably you mean human health risks but I'm not positive. You say there is lots of evidence.
Your claim. Show me.
Mike
Mike
It's not just the perceived health risks, it's also supporting the machine (Monsanto) that controls the majority of our grown foods supply. Read up on Mansanto - there's far too much info out there for me to post for you. I've been researching GMO's for over a year now - I'm afraid you will need to do the research yourself.
For me, it's not just how GMO's may affect my, and my families, bodies - it's also about the bigger picture. As an example, when I began switching over to organic foods, it wasn't just because I didn't want to put pesticides in my body -I was also concerned about the pesticides being put into our air and water supply, as well as the laborers harvesting those foods. The less demand there is for foods grown with pesticides, the less pesticides there will be in our air and water.
Also Mike
I'm not pressuring other people to not eat GMO's, I just don't want to - therefore, I just want the choice. Who will it hurt if foods are labelled? Who will it hurt if it's not? Why shouldn't I know and have a choice about the foods I'm feeding to my family? Just like reading the ingredient labels and deciding that I don't want to eat any foods that contain high fructose corn syrup - will companies want to stop listing ingredients? If I lived down south, I could grow more of my own food. Since I can't, I read labels and make sure it's the healthiest decision for my family.
JNUKara, GMO fear
I can understand your philosophical position against an entity; in this case the company Monsanto. I simply remain unable to understand the fears about GMOs considering there is no good evidence to back up the so-called health risks.
The study cited in this article, the "very credible" one, is actually a textbook case in how not to scientifically establish claims.
Thanks for clarifying what you can and won't offer.
Mike
If...
I could buy a GMO tomato plant that actually produced tasty tomatoes in my Juneau garden, without requiring a greenhouse, I'd probably go for it.
The nutritional benefits of fresh tomatoes here would likely outweigh any perceived risks. Same goes for sweet corn and watermelon.