SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
food labeling proposition
Truth In Labeling--It's Our Right to Know What's in Our Food
Aug 21, 2015
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. A gross misnomer, of course, since the bill's real purpose is to preempt the rights of state and local governments to pass laws requiring the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to overturn GMO labeling laws already in place in several states, and to prevent the passage of any federal mandatory GMO labeling law in the future.
If this bill becomes law, U.S. consumers will be deprived of basic information about the content of their food—information they want and have a right to know. It will also prohibit truthful disclosure and non-misleading free speech, violating the First Amendment.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives feels campaign contributions are protected free speech, but truthful food labels... I guess not.
Since GMO crops were first commercialized, farmers have widely adopted them, mostly in the US and Canada. While I have never planted these crops, I have watched my neighbors do so as their initial, total acceptance of transgenic seeds turned to failure as the technology became overwhelmed by herbicide-resistant weeds and insects.
To most of them, it has been an uphill battle. Most tell me they make no more money planting GMOs and see no added benefit for their customers. What they do see, however, is that the biotech industry continues to show steadily increasing profits. They feel trapped on a treadmill.
Perhaps only those of us who live in rural areas see how much pesticide and fertilizer are used to grow these high-tech crops. They will not yield without the application of their patented chemicals and high fertility levels. It is a vicious cycle; farmers must strive to get every possible bushel of yield to offset falling prices and rising costs.
If the millions of pounds of herbicides used to control weeds were insufficient, another widely accepted (and largely unnoticed) practice is using Monsanto's Round-Up(r) as a crop desiccant. Small grain crops (wheat, oats, barley, etc.) are routinely sprayed just days before harvest to kill any late-maturing grain and surviving weeds.
None of these small grains are "Round-Up Ready," so they will die to facilitate easier harvest. The grain, which then goes directly into the food chain, is not residue tested, and clearly, the chemical has little time to break down before grinding the grain into flour or processing it into other food products.
Thus, herbicides are directly added to our diets. While this use of herbicides is not directly connected to HR 1599, it points out how pervasive pesticide use has become and how regulation is lacking. The widespread and increasing use of pesticides in every situation has become standard, accepted, ignored, and legal.
H.R. 1599 is a prime example of how corporate money has corrupted the political process to create laws protecting corporate profits at the expense of American citizens. According to a report from Open Secrets, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, the 275 members of the U.S. House who voted in favor of H.R. 1599 received $29.9 million in contributions from the agribusiness and food industries in the 2014 cycle.
While campaign contributions can easily explain the passage of 1599 in the House, one wonders how the majority party, which prides itself on ending "big government" and giving more power back to state and local governments, can so mindlessly pass a bill that removes those powers.
If GMOs are so good and so safe, why do we need laws to protect them from scrutiny? As Bill Maher points out, "When consumers know things, they tend to make informed choices, and that could affect corporate profits. I'm sorry, but your right to know is always going to be outweighed by their right to hide it from you."
Perhaps if we went back to a more local, less intensive style of farming, we would not grow so much corn and soybeans, but that could be good. We might actually grow more pasture for livestock and more food for people. We might be less reliant on getting our food from the global economy. People might know what they are eating, and our farmer-owners and farm workers might be able to make a living wage.
Laws like HR 1599 won't get us there.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods: Whose Side Are You On?
Jul 26, 2012
This November, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on a simple, yet important ballot initiative called Prop 37 - the California Right to Know Act. If approved, it would require food sold in California supermarkets be clearly labeled if it has been genetically engineered.
What many probably don't yet know is there is no clearer David versus Goliath fight on this year's ballot. On one side, is a truly grassroots people's movement that generated over a million signatures in just 10 weeks, easily qualifying for the November ballot. On the other stands the largest anti-union, pro-pesticide, agrichemical interests in the world dedicated to saying and spending whatever it takes to hide the fact that some of our most important crops are being genetically engineered in a lab without our knowledge or consent.
As noted by Marc Lifsher in a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Kellogg."
But the most notable opposition to date comes from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has given $375,000 to the cause already, and according to their spokesperson "Defeating the initiative is GMA's single highest priority this year." The GMA's membership reads like a virtual who's who of anti-worker, anti-health, and anti-family farmer corporate interests, including outsourcing trendsetter Bain and Company, notorious polluter Dow Chemical, anti-union heavyweights Safeway Inc. and Bayer, and Monsanto, the world's largest agrichemical corporation.
Consider:
- Bain and Company has been receiving its share of anti-worker press of late and rightly so. The company literally wrote the book on outsourcing, making hundreds of millions of dollars by closing American factories, laying off its workers, then sending those jobs overseas while hiding profits in offshore tax havens.
- Just this week news broke that Monsanto is being sued by a group of Texas farmers who say they were promised free housing but instead were charged thousands and poisoned by pesticides.
- Safeway tried mightily to eliminate affordable health insurance for workers - forcing a well- known 137 day strike that caused many employees to lose their homes, shareholders to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, and shoppers to lose the reliable service of their grocery clerks.
- Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide, whose infamous pesticide plant in Bhopal leaked toxic gas into the community 28 years ago, which killed up to 25,000 people. To this day Dow has fought against providing adequate restitution to its victims and those still suffering from the impact of the disaster and other injuries caused by the chemicals it produces.
- Bayer recently closed a plant in Emeryville after receiving huge tax benefits from the Berkeley and Oakland City Councils. Meanwhile, just a year earlier, the company laid off union workers in Berkeley. Less than a handful of Bayer's fifty factories in North America remain unionized thanks to its aggressive anti-worker campaigns.
These are the kinds of forces that have made defeating Prop 37 their top priority. And it's their abysmal anti-worker record that no doubt played a role in the California Labor Federation's endorsement of Prop 37 yesterday.
Don't be fooled by the corporate front group posing as a consumer rights coalition calling themselves the misleading "Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling Proposition" (CACFLP). Not a single legitimate consumer rights organization opposes Prop 37. It costs nothing to print a few words on a label indicating if the food produced was genetically engineered.
And if that's not enough, key opponent spokespeople have a long history of abetting anti-consumer campaigns:
- Kathy Fairbanks worked for the Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates - an auto insurance industry front group bankrolled by billionaire Mercury Insurance executive George Joseph.
- Maryann Marino is the Southern California regional director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) - which according to Public Citizen "...masquerade as grassroots citizens groups spontaneously manifesting citizen anger against so-called 'lawsuit abuse.'
- And then there's the man leading the opposition effort - Tom Hiltachk - a former tobacco industry lobbyist who was also the lead proponent of Proposition 23, the oil-industry funded attempt to suspend California's global warming law.
The question before voters could not be more stark: Do you side with anti-worker, pro-polluter forces epitomized by the GMA and deceptive corporate front groups, or do you side with 90% of California voters, the California Labor Federation, family farmers, the Consumer Federation of America, the United Farm Workers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Public Citizen, the California League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club -- and our fundamental, democratic right to know what we are putting in our bodies?
Initiative Background: What is a GMO?
A genetically engineered food (also known as genetically modified organism, or GMO) is a plant or animal product that has had its DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria. A classic example is corn that contains the pesticide Bt toxin inside the corn itself. In other words, we're talking about food that has been created in a laboratory and altered at the molecular level, and not found anywhere in nature.
Prop 37 would simply provide Californians with the right to know what we're eating, what we feed our children, and whether we have the ability to make informed choices about what we eat.
Overwhelming Public Support for the Right to Know
Before you get bombarded by tens of millions of dollars of misleading ads bankrolled by big business interests dedicated to keeping consumers in the dark, consider this: an overwhelming majority of Californians want to know if their food is genetically engineered.
Polls show nearly unanimous support across the political spectrum for such labeling. This is one of the few issues in America that enjoys broad bipartisan support: 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats want genetically altered foods to be labeled (Mellman 2012, Reuters 2010, Zogby 2012). An April poll by San Francisco TV station KCBS found that 91% of Californians back labeling.
Nearly 50 Countries Already Label GMO Foods
Countries across the globe already require labeling of genetically engineered food - including all of Europe, Australia, Japan, and even China and Russia. So the very same companies fighting our right to know what's in our food in California provide this same information to their customers in other countries. There hasn't been any notable increase in food prices in those countries - only a more informed public. Let's be frank: every food product you purchase has labeling on it already. Does anyone really believe adding one more line is going to hurt consumers?
But there are other reasons Californians deserve labeling and increased consumer choice:
GMO Health Concerns Rising:There is sufficient evidence - and an increasing number of studies - raising doubts and concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods. A growing body of science suggests that they may be contributing to rising rates of allergies, especially among children.
Pesticide Use Increases, Food Supply Doesn't: The latest data shows genetically engineered crops require more pesticides over the past 15 years, not less - giving rise to superweeds and superbugs. These pesticides are manufactured by the same companies that told us DDT or Agent Orange were safe. And there is no reason to believe genetically engineered foods are more productive.
Who Do You Trust: Public Interest Advocates or Big Business?
Opponents have built a business model that relies on a lack of food system transparency, the exploitation of workers, and the avoidance of tax responsibilities. Prop 37 threatens their stranglehold on consumer choice - which prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.
The debate over the efficacy of genetically engineered foods should and will continue. In the meantime, we should all have the right to know what we're eating and decide for ourselves what is best for our families. Vote Yes on Prop 37.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular