Tag: GMO labeling

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food System, Sustainable LivingTags , , ,

Americans are buying gene-edited food that's not labeled GMO

Craig Giammona and Jack Kaskey, BLOOMBERG NEWS
Products made possible through gene-editing have landed on grocery shelves. Whether they’ll stay there is up to shoppers wary of technological tinkering.
Food companies are now required to label GMOs in Vermont, and debate is raging over a federal standard. But so far, regulators at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have taken a pass on overseeing gene-edited crops. They say cutting DNA from a plant is not the same as adding genes from another organism. So corn injected with outside DNA is classified a genetically modified organism, but canola that can tolerate herbicide because scientists removed a gene is not.
Industry giants like Monsanto Co., DuPont and Dow Chemical Co. have stepped through the regulatory void. They’ve struck licensing deals with smaller companies for gene-editing technology. U.S. farmers harvested 8,000 acres (3,237 hectares) last year of gene-edited canola processed into cooking oil marketed as non-GMO. Looming are U.S. consumers who’ve rejected GMO products despite a preponderance of evidence that they’re safe to grow and eat.
“There’s a feeling among consumers that they want their food as close as possible to what nature intended,” said Carl Jorgenson, director of wellness strategy at Daymon Worldwide, a retail marketing firm. “There’s an overall distrust of Big Food and Big Science.”
Farmers and scientists have manipulated crops for thousands of years. Gene-editing is what proponents call a more precise version of mutation breeding that’s been used since the mid-1900s. Commercial varieties of edibles, including wheat, barley, rice and grapefruit, were created by mutating DNA with chemicals or radiation.
With GMOs, there’s suspicion among consumers. U.S. food companies spent millions fighting labeling requirements, fueling theories that GMOs are unhealthy. And there’s a sense that the benefits of genetically engineered crops have gone mainly to farmers and big agricultural companies that supply seeds and pesticides and not to consumers.
Read more at: Americans Are Buying Gene-Edited Food That’s Not Labeled GMO – Bloomberg

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food System, Sustainable LivingTags

Huge Victory: Senate Rejects the DARK Act

Wenonah Hauter, ECOWATCH
Today, the Senate did the right thing and did not advance a bill from Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) that can best be described as the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. The bill would have prevented states from requiring labeling of genetically engineered (GMO) foods and stopped pending state laws that require labeling to go into effect.
Many Senators properly noted that this bill fails to solve the problem it claims to fix. Instead, by blocking state laws from going into effect and replacing them with voluntary measures and impractical alternatives to labeling, it would have ensured that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers.
Another common message from many Senators was the need to continue negotiating about the contents of this bill. But more compromise will not fix the problem at the core of Sen. Roberts’ approach: Blocking state laws that require GMO labeling will strip away the ability of states to protect the public’s right to know what is in its food. Any version of this bill that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable.
People want to know if the food they buy contains GMO ingredients. It’s time for Congress to create a mandatory on-package labeling requirement so people can decide for themselves whether they want to eat a food that has been produced using genetic engineering.
The majority of Americans support labeling for GMOs and will hold their elected officials accountable if they vote to strip away transparency about how their food is produced. We urge the Senate to continue to reject bills that would block state labeling laws.
Source: Huge Victory: Senate Rejects the DARK Act

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food System, Sonoma Coast, Sustainable LivingTags , , ,

FDA OKs genetically modified salmon for human consumption

Mary Clare Jalonick, ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved genetically modified salmon, the first such altered animal allowed for human consumption in the United States.
The Obama administration had stalled in approving the fast-growing salmon for more than five years amid consumer concerns about eating genetically modified foods. But the agency said Thursday the fish is safe to eat.
In announcing the approval, the FDA said that there are “no biologically relevant differences in the nutritional profile of AquAdvantage Salmon compared to that of other farm-raised Atlantic salmon.”
AquAdvantage Salmon was created by the Massachusetts-based company AquaBounty. Ron Stotish, the company’s CEO, said in a statement that the fish is a “game changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats.
“The fish grows twice as fast as normal salmon, so it reaches market size more quickly. It has an added growth hormone from the Pacific Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce growth hormone all year long. The engineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout that acts like an “on” switch for the hormone. Typical Atlantic salmon produce the growth hormone for only part of the year.
The FDA has also said the fish is unlikely to harm the environment. The fish would be bred female and sterile, though a very small percentage might still be able to breed. The company has argued the potential for escape is low.There is no evidence that the foods would be unsafe, but for some people, it’s an ethical issue.
Some retailers have pledged not to sell the salmon, and it’s still unclear whether the public will have an appetite for the fish if it is approved. Genetic engineering is already widely used for crops, but the government until now has not considered allowing the consumption of modified animals. Although the potential benefits and profits are huge, many people have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.
Critics call the modified salmon a “frankenfish.” They worry that it could cause human allergies and the eventual decimation of the natural salmon population if it escapes and breeds in the wild. Others believe breeding engineered animals is an ethical issue.
Source: FDA OKs Genetically Modified Salmon For Human Consumption

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food System, Sustainable LivingTags , , Leave a comment on U.S.D.A. develops label to verify G.M.O.-FREE. food

U.S.D.A. develops label to verify G.M.O.-FREE. food

Associated Press
The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified organisms. The certification, which is the first of its kind, would be voluntary and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a “U.S.D.A. Process Verified” label along with a claim that they are free of G.M.O.s. The agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, outlined the new certification in a May 1 letter to department employees, saying it was being done at the request of a “leading global company,” which he did not identify. The government says G.M.O.s on the market now are safe, so mandatory labels are not needed. But consumer groups say shoppers still have a right to know what is in their food.
Source: U.S.D.A. Develops Label to Verify G.M.O.-FREE. Food – NYTimes.com

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food SystemTags , , Leave a comment on State Sen. Noreen Evans' GMO food-labeling bill clears state Senate committee

State Sen. Noreen Evans' GMO food-labeling bill clears state Senate committee

Derek Moore, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Proposed legislation by state Sen. Noreen Evans requiring all foods containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled in California cleared its first hurdle Wednesday in Sacramento.

The Senate Committee on Health approved the bill on a 5-2 vote after Evans, D-Santa Rosa, agreed to several amendments, including that the legislation exclude alcohol products and not take effect until Jan. 1. 2016.

Supporters of GMO labeling argue that it is necessary to protect public health and the consumer’s right to make informed choices. Critics, however, say such labels would confuse shoppers and lead to higher production costs.

“I want to be very clear: This bill doesn’t ban anything,” Evans testified Wednesday. “It simply requires labeling. It’s agnostic on whether GMOs are good, or whether they are bad.”

Proponents of labeling, including the California State Grange, turned to lawmakers after California voters in 2012 narrowly turned down a ballot measure that would have essentially accomplished the same thing.

via State Sen. Noreen Evans' GMO food-labeling bill clears state Senate committee (w/video) | The Press Democrat.

Author SuzannePosted on Categories Agriculture/Food System, Sustainable LivingTags , , Leave a comment on State Sen. Noreen Evans' GMO food-labeling bill clears state Senate committee

State Sen. Noreen Evans' GMO food-labeling bill clears state Senate committee

Derek Moore, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Proposed legislation by state Sen. Noreen Evans requiring all foods containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled in California cleared its first hurdle Wednesday in Sacramento.

The Senate Committee on Health approved the bill on a 5-2 vote after Evans, D-Santa Rosa, agreed to several amendments, including that the legislation exclude alcohol products and not take effect until Jan. 1. 2016.

Supporters of GMO labeling argue that it is necessary to protect public health and the consumer’s right to make informed choices. Critics, however, say such labels would confuse shoppers and lead to higher production costs.

“I want to be very clear: This bill doesn’t ban anything,” Evans testified Wednesday. “It simply requires labeling. It’s agnostic on whether GMOs are good, or whether they are bad.”

via Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA.