GM), labelling, Vermont (proposed laws), lawsuits and suchlike
I started linking to things over at Facebook, but my browser got a little tab-rich, so I thought I'd do this summary/linkset about GMO labelling up here in Vermont.
First, there's been some proposed legislation. It hasn't got very far yet. In March, there was testimony for and against. A very quick summary from a former co-worker* who now works at vtdigger: http://vtdigger.org/2012/03/19/bill-requiring-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-food-saved-from-procedural-death/
According to Hansen at Consumers Union, more than 50 countries containing a third of the world’s population require some sort of labeling of food containing GMOs. Hirshberg said that countries requiring labeling include all of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Russia.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling and, Agriculture Committee Chair Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, said, no state does, either. Hirshberg said that 21 states are working on similar bills.
The committee is clearly hesitant to make Vermont the first state in the nation to pass a law opposed by biotechnology giants like Monsanto, a company with a track record of aggressive litigation to protect their products.
Aside: Monsanto says this about litigation/product protection at http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx:We pursue these matters for three main reasons. First, no business can survive without being paid for its product. Second, the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market. Third, it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field.
Back to GMO/labeling n Vermont (it's already required in several other countries): People kept talking. Labeling happens in other countries, and there are moves in other places in the US for it also:
http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/03/vermont-not-alone-in-pushing-for-gmo-labeling-of-foods/
http://justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/JLI_infographic_final_march27.jpg (see justlabelit.org for more)
And now along comes this news: Monsanto threatens to sue Vermont if we pass such legislation. The alternet article ( http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled?page=entire ) is reproduced in several places I easily found over the net... notably, not (yet?) in anything larger than Mother Jones (not, say, Burlington Free Press, new York Times, etc...) The article did not identify the legal grounds for such a suit.
All in all, not that surprising, given Monsanto's business practices and position on GMO labeling: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx
Is that position reasonable? Well, consider the Institute for Science and Society's 2004 artlice "DNA in GM Food and Feed" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNAIF.php -- more research of course in the last 8 years, and if you have a link to some, let me know. Excerpting a tiny bit:
GMDNA and natural DNA are indistinguishable according to the most mundane chemistry, i.e., they have the same chemical formula or atomic composition. Apart from that, they are as different as night and day. Natural DNA is made in living organisms; GMDNA is made in the laboratory. Natural DNA has the signature of the species to which it belongs; GMDNA contains bits copied from the DNA of a wide variety of organisms, or simply synthesized in the laboratory. Natural DNA has billions of years of evolution behind it; GMDNA contains genetic material and combinations of genetic material that have never existed.
Furthermore, GMDNA is designed - albeit crudely - to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes. Design features include changes in the genetic code and special ends that enhance recombination, i.e., breaking into genomes and rejoining. GMDNA often contains antibiotic resistance marker genes needed in the process of making GM organisms, but serves no useful function in the GM organism.
The GM process clearly isn’t what nature does (see "Puncturing the GM myths", SiS22). It bypasses reproduction, short circuits and greatly accelerates evolution. Natural evolution created new combinations of genetic material at a predominantly slow and steady pace over billions of years. There is a natural limit, not only to the rate but also to the scope of gene shuffling in evolution. That’s because each species comes onto the evolutionary stage in its own space and time, and only those species that overlap in space and time could ever exchange genes at all in nature. With GM, however, there’s no limit whatsoever: even DNA from organisms buried and extinct for hundreds of thousands of years could be dug up, copied and recombined with DNA from organisms that exist today.
Also, Dave Zuckerman (among many) comments on the March article that even if the product itself doesn't have GM anything in it particularly, it may have had that in feed -- and in the wider ecosystems. The repercussions of GMOs go far beyond what you actually put in your very own body. And perhaps that matters to you too.
In the meantime, during the absence of labeling, this PDF guide may help: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cfs-shoppers-guide.pdf
* Disclosure: We both worked at Stone Environmental, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Montpelier. I was there until 2004. At least one of the projects I worked on came about due to Monsanto having to comply with EPA regulations.
First, there's been some proposed legislation. It hasn't got very far yet. In March, there was testimony for and against. A very quick summary from a former co-worker* who now works at vtdigger: http://vtdigger.org/2012/03/19/bill-requiring-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-food-saved-from-procedural-death/
According to Hansen at Consumers Union, more than 50 countries containing a third of the world’s population require some sort of labeling of food containing GMOs. Hirshberg said that countries requiring labeling include all of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Russia.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling and, Agriculture Committee Chair Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, said, no state does, either. Hirshberg said that 21 states are working on similar bills.
The committee is clearly hesitant to make Vermont the first state in the nation to pass a law opposed by biotechnology giants like Monsanto, a company with a track record of aggressive litigation to protect their products.
Aside: Monsanto says this about litigation/product protection at http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx:We pursue these matters for three main reasons. First, no business can survive without being paid for its product. Second, the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market. Third, it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field.
Back to GMO/labeling n Vermont (it's already required in several other countries): People kept talking. Labeling happens in other countries, and there are moves in other places in the US for it also:
http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/03/vermont-not-alone-in-pushing-for-gmo-labeling-of-foods/
http://justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/JLI_infographic_final_march27.jpg (see justlabelit.org for more)
And now along comes this news: Monsanto threatens to sue Vermont if we pass such legislation. The alternet article ( http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled?page=entire ) is reproduced in several places I easily found over the net... notably, not (yet?) in anything larger than Mother Jones (not, say, Burlington Free Press, new York Times, etc...) The article did not identify the legal grounds for such a suit.
All in all, not that surprising, given Monsanto's business practices and position on GMO labeling: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx
Is that position reasonable? Well, consider the Institute for Science and Society's 2004 artlice "DNA in GM Food and Feed" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNAIF.php -- more research of course in the last 8 years, and if you have a link to some, let me know. Excerpting a tiny bit:
GMDNA and natural DNA are indistinguishable according to the most mundane chemistry, i.e., they have the same chemical formula or atomic composition. Apart from that, they are as different as night and day. Natural DNA is made in living organisms; GMDNA is made in the laboratory. Natural DNA has the signature of the species to which it belongs; GMDNA contains bits copied from the DNA of a wide variety of organisms, or simply synthesized in the laboratory. Natural DNA has billions of years of evolution behind it; GMDNA contains genetic material and combinations of genetic material that have never existed.
Furthermore, GMDNA is designed - albeit crudely - to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes. Design features include changes in the genetic code and special ends that enhance recombination, i.e., breaking into genomes and rejoining. GMDNA often contains antibiotic resistance marker genes needed in the process of making GM organisms, but serves no useful function in the GM organism.
The GM process clearly isn’t what nature does (see "Puncturing the GM myths", SiS22). It bypasses reproduction, short circuits and greatly accelerates evolution. Natural evolution created new combinations of genetic material at a predominantly slow and steady pace over billions of years. There is a natural limit, not only to the rate but also to the scope of gene shuffling in evolution. That’s because each species comes onto the evolutionary stage in its own space and time, and only those species that overlap in space and time could ever exchange genes at all in nature. With GM, however, there’s no limit whatsoever: even DNA from organisms buried and extinct for hundreds of thousands of years could be dug up, copied and recombined with DNA from organisms that exist today.
Also, Dave Zuckerman (among many) comments on the March article that even if the product itself doesn't have GM anything in it particularly, it may have had that in feed -- and in the wider ecosystems. The repercussions of GMOs go far beyond what you actually put in your very own body. And perhaps that matters to you too.
In the meantime, during the absence of labeling, this PDF guide may help: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cfs-shoppers-guide.pdf
* Disclosure: We both worked at Stone Environmental, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Montpelier. I was there until 2004. At least one of the projects I worked on came about due to Monsanto having to comply with EPA regulations.