Here’s my piece from The Guardian, April 2, 2016.
When the Senate last week failed to pass a bill that would block individual states from passing laws requiring GMO labeling, it meant that Vermont’s labeling law would go into effect July 1. Vermont passed its bill in 2014.
Too bad for the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its food and biotech company members who spent hundreds of millions of dollars fighting labeling requirements.
Food companies now have a big problem. If they want to sell products in Vermont, they must comply with GMO labeling. Also, if other states pass slightly different laws, they will have to do labels state by state—a compliance nightmare.
Hence their attempt to get Congress to preempt Vermont’s law. That ploy failed.
The result: one huge food company after another says it will voluntarily institute GMO labeling to comply with Vermont’s requirements.
As quoted by Reuters, General Mills says:
We can’t label our products for only one state without significantly driving up costs for our consumers, and we simply won’t do that,” Jeff Harmening, head of General Mills’ US retail operations said in a post on the company’s blog. “The result: Consumers all over the country will soon begin seeing words legislated by the state of Vermont on the labels of many of their favorite General Mills food products.”
Politico Morning Agriculture explains:
To be sure, General Mills is labeling as a practical business decision, not to change the policy discussion. The first-in-the-nation GMO labeling law is set to take effect in Vermont on July 1. As of that date, food makers face fines of $1,000 per day for every product type found on grocery store shelves in the state that’s not properly marked.
In the meantime, the Non-GMO Project, which certifies products as GMO-free, has put its seal on tens of thousands of products.
The reality: the public wants GMO foods to be labeled.
This should come as no surprise. Public surveys since the late 1980s have come to the same conclusion.
Q: Why aren’t GMO foods labeled as such?
A. Industry lobbying and an FDA too weak to stand up to it (see my book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety).
The GMO and grocery industries brought this situation on themselves by so strongly opposing labeling in 1994. Believe me, they were warned (I witnessed all this as a member of the FDA Food Advisory Committee at the time).
Unless the industry can find another way to stop it, foods will be GMO labeled this year.
My prediction: the world will not come to an end.
State GMO labeling bills: While Congress dithers, states are getting busy. The Sunlight Foundation’s SCOUT database on state GMO legislative initiatives is searchable. Examples:
Detente between producers of GMO and labeling advocates: USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack held a meeting to attempt to forge some kind of accord between producers of GMO foods and advocates for GMO labels. By all reports, it didn’t work. Earlier, Vilsack tried to negotiate detente between GMO producers and producers of organic foods. That didn’t work either.
GMO Salmon: The FDA says it will not allow imports of GMO salmon. Since GMO salmon are produced in Canada and Panama, this action in effect bans GMO salmon from the US food supply. The FDA is working on labeling guidelines and probably wants them out before allowing imports.
Monsanto’s conversation: Monsanto’s interactive website invites you to be part of the conversation. Aything you like. Someone from Monsanto will respond. This site is clearly keeping Monsanto’s PR staff on its toes. Here is just one example:
Jason Huffman, Helena Bottemiller Evich, and Jenny Hopkinson of Politico Pro Agriculture have published their end-of-year assessment of game-changing events in food and agriculture policy last year. Here’s their list:
I’ve discussed most of these on this site (all except Waters of the US).
I can’t wait to see what this year brings—more of the same, for sure, but what else? Stay tuned.
The FDA is extending the comment period for the meaning of “natural” on food labels until May 10, 2016. This, it says, is
In direct response to requests from the public…Due to the complexity of this issue, the FDA is committed to providing the public with more time to submit comments. The FDA will thoroughly review all public comments and information submitted before determining its next steps.
The “complexity of this issue?” Isn’t it obvious what “natural” means when applied to food—minimally processed with no junk added?
Not a chance. “Natural” is too valuable a marketing term to forbid its use on highly processed foods. To wit:
Here, as the agency explains, is what complicates the meaning of “natural”:
The FDA is taking this action in part because it received three Citizen Petitions asking that the agency define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one Citizen Petition asking that the agency prohibit the term “natural” on food labels. We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.”
Are foods containing genetically modified ingredients or HFCS “natural?”
The FDA says
It has long “considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.
However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. The FDA also did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefit.
Specifically, the FDA asks for information and public comment on questions such as:
If you want to weigh in on this, you now have until May 10 to do so. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and type FDA-2014-N-1207 in the search box.
Here are the background documents:
May your holidays be happy, healthy, and natural, of course.
The FDA has just approved AquAdvantage’s genetically engineered (GMO) Atlantic salmon. The salmon will not have to be labeled as GMO.
The FDA has spent at least four years coming to this decision. In previous posts, I’ve discussed.
What more to say? Only that federal agencies are tone deaf about the GMO issue.
The FDA thinks that just because it judges the salmon safe to it, that automatically makes it acceptable to the public.
But as anyone who knows anything about risk communication can tell you, even if the salmon is safe to eat, the public may not want it for a host of other reasons.
The decision not to label the salmon, is also tone deaf. The FDA bases its decision on its decision that genetic modification is not material, meaning that the GMO fish has a similar nutrient composition to wild or other farm-raised salmon.
But the FDA requires labeling of plenty of other non-material processes: made from concentrate, previously frozen, and irradiated, for example.
As far as I can tell, the FDA has learned nothing about risk communication in the 20 years since it approved GMO foods for production and consumption. The protests are already underway, some from members of Congress.
Politico Pro Agriculture quotes Senator Lisa Murkowski (Dem-AK):
“We have made no bones about the fact that this is wrong, not only for Alaska and our wild salmon stocks…but around the country,” she said, adding: “At a bare minimum people around this country need to know what they are serving their families when it comes to seafood.”
Murkowski said the draft labeling guidance released today fell short of what consumers need and plans to “continue the fight” against the fish.
This will be interesting to watch.
The FDA documents
News
Approval Documents
Environmental Documents
Today’s New York Times has another front-page (and on the inside, full-page) story on the food industry’s financial relationships with academic scientists.
The article describes how Monsanto funded scientists to lobby for GMOs in Washington (I will say more about this in a subsequent post).
But, as is clear from this report, the organic industry is doing much the same.
The Times based the story on e-mails it collected through open records law requests (the equivalent of Freedom of Information Act requests for federal documents).
And surprise! I turn up in Charles Benbrook’s. I learned this from checking Twitter yesterday.
I’m only on the B-list for influencing public opinion? Alas.
It seems that Charles Benbrook, a strong proponent of organics (as am I), was working with (for?) the Organic Valley Cooperative on a public relations campaign to promote his organics-funded study demonstrating that organic milk has a healthier fatty acid profile than conventional milk.
I vaguely remember him contacting me about the study, but I didn’t write anything about it. It appeared to be an industry-funded study with results favoring the sponsor’s interests—much as, in this case, I sympathize with those interests.
A few months later, I did write write about another conflicted organic study:
The study is not independently funded….This study is another example of how the outcome of sponsored research invariably favors the sponsor’s interests. The paper says “the [Sheepdrove] Trust had no influence on the design and management of the research project and the preparation of publications from the project,” but that’s exactly what studies funded by Coca-Cola say. It’s an amazing coincidence how the results of sponsored studies almost invariably favor the sponsor’s interests. And that’s true of results I like just as it is of results that I don’t like.
Benbrook has been criticized recently for not fully disclosing his ties to the organic industry. Even if he had, disclosure is not enough.
The bottom line: Conflicted studies are conflicted, no matter who pays for them.
Documents: Charles Benbrook
On Friday, the USDA announced that it approved production of “Innate” potatoes, genetically modified by the Simplot company to
The official Federal Register notice is published here.
Earlier this year, the FDA “completed its consultation” with Simplot:
Simplot’s varieties of Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank and Atlantic potatoes are collectively known by the trade name “Innate” and are genetically engineered to reduce the formation of black spot bruises by lowering the levels of certain enzymes in the potatoes.
In addition, they are engineered to produce less acrylamide by lowering the levels of an amino acid called asparagine and by lowering the levels of reducing-sugars. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking, such as frying, and has been found to be carcinogenic in rodents.
These sound like useful traits. According to the Simplot video (worth watching), the company is proud of having produced a “better, more sustainable potato.”
Questions:
I will be watching this one with great interest.
Americans these days don’t want artificial and unsustainably produced ingredients in the food they buy and eat. For the makers of highly processed foods – ultraprocessed in today’s terminology – there isn’t a lot that they can do to make the products appear fresh and natural.
But Campbell’s is certainly trying. A few months after announcing that it will phase out genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the iconic soup company said on Friday that it will remove Bisphenol-A (BPA) from its cans by next year.
BPA, you will recall, is a chemical typically used in polycarbonate plastic containers and in the epoxy linings of food cans. It’s also an endocrine disrupter, which means it can interfere with the work our hormones are doing. Some research finds BPA to have effects on childhood development and reproduction.
Although the FDA doesn’t believe evidence of potential harm is sufficient to ban BPA from the food supply, the agency discourages use of BPA-polycarbonate or epoxy resins in baby bottles, sippy cups or packaging for infant formulas. For the past year or so, other retailers have been working hard to phase out BPA and to reassure customers that their cans and packages are safe.
All of these companies sell highly processed foods in an era when the public is demanding – and voting with their dollars – for fresh, natural, organic, locally grown and sustainably produced ingredients.
They can’t provide those things, but they can tout the bad, or unpopular, things that aren’t part of their product, the “no’s”: no unnatural additives, no artificial colors or flavors, no high fructose corn syrup, no trans fat, no gluten and, yes, no GMOs or BPA.
Let me add something about companies labeling their products GMO-free. In my view, the food biotechnology industry created this market – and greatly promoted the market for organics, which do not allow GMOs – by refusing to label which of its products contain GMOs and getting the FDA to go along with that decision. Whether or not GMOs are harmful, transparency in food marketing is hugely important to increasing segments of the public. People don’t trust the food industry to act in the public interest; transparency increases trust.
Vermont voted last year to mandate GMO labeling in the state – the US Senate rejected a bill in mid-March attempting to undermine it – and food conglomerates such as Campbell’s, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogg and Mars have committed to labeling their products as containing GMO.
In addition to removing BPA from packaging and GMO from products, at least 11 other companies have announced recently that say they are phasing out as many artificial additives as possible, as quickly as they can.
Taco Bell, for example, will get rid of Yellow Dye #6, high fructose corn syrup, palm oil and artificial preservatives, and replace them with “natural” ingredients. Huge food companies such as Kraft, Nestlé (no relation) and General Mills are heading in the same direction.
All this may well benefit consumers to an extent. It also makes perfect sense from a business perspective: the “no’s” sell. But what everyone needs to remember is that foods labeled “free from” still have calories and may well contain excessive salt and sugars. The healthiest diets contain vegetables and lots of other relatively unprocessed foods. No amount of subtraction from highly processed foods is going to change that.