Fifty-Five Members Of Congress Call On FDA To Require Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods

This morning a bicameral letter signed by 55 Members of Congress was sent to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The bicameral, bipartisan letter led by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was written in support of a legal petition filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of the Just Label It campaign and its nearly 400 partner organizations and businesses; many health, consumer, environmental, and farming organizations, as well as food companies, are also signatories.  Since CFS filed the labeling petition in October 2011, the public has submitted over 850,000 comments in support of labeling.

"Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.  "FDA's two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked.  The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations' citizens."

In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand-consistently near 95%-for the labeling of GE foods.  The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations.  Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.

In its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not "materially" different from other foods.  However, the agency severely limited what it considered "material" by targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses - applying 19th century science to the regulation of 21st century food technologies.  The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.

A Brief History of Genetically Engineered Trees

Even the introduction of non-GE tree monocultures has been proven to have an incredibly damaging effect on local eco-systems and communities. Eucalyptus trees are already considered to be an invasive species in Florida and California and have a whole host of associated problems due their flammability and high demand for water.

Despite all the evidence, the USDA continues to support development of these and other GE trees, so what are the links between the multinational companies and the regulatory bodies that are supposed to protect the environment? With ArborGen's pending controversial application to the USDA to grow flowering GE Eucalyptus trees in commercial plantations across the US it seems appropriate to have a look at the history of GE field trials across the globe and the regulation (or lack of it) that has been in place over the last 20 years.

Early GE Trials

The first field trials of GE trees were started in Belgium in 1988 when researchers began to develop GE Poplars which were genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides. By 1999 the Biotech nightmare was a reality with multinationals such as Monsanto, International Paper, Fletcher Challenge Forests and the Westvaco Corporation supporting GE tree trials at over 116 sites in 17 countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, UK, USA and Uruguay.

The first trees to get the GE treatment were the fast growing varieties such as Eucalyptus, Poplars and Pines with the intention to produce crops that were herbicide and/or insect resistant, faster growing and produced higher yields for the timber and pulp industries.  Naturally all of these tendencies would result in higher profit margins for the companies that were investing in them rather than enhanced benefit to the environment.

New WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide

By Mike Ludwig
Dozens of United States diplomatic cables released in the latest WikiLeaks dump on Wednesday reveal new details of the US effort to push foreign governments to approve  genetically engineered (GE) crops and promote the worldwide interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont.

The cables further confirm previous Truthout reports on the diplomatic pressure the US has put on Spain and France, two countries with powerful anti-GE crop movements, to speed up their biotech approval process and quell anti-GE sentiment within the European Union (EU).

Several cables describe "biotechnology outreach programs" in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables (such as this 2010 cable from Morocco) US diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send US biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.

Truthout recently reported on front groups supported by the US government, philanthropic foundations and companies like Monsanto that are working to introduce pro-biotechnology policy initiatives and GE crops in developing African countries, and several cables released this week confirm that American diplomats have promoted biotech agriculture to countries like Tunisia, South Africa and Mozambique.

Hazards of Monsanto's New SmartStax Genetically Engineered Corn

By Lucy Sharratt
This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto's eight-trait "SmartStax" genetically modified (GM) corn. Approved in 2009 and grown for the first time in North America last year, the new GM corn appears as processed food ingredients and feed for dairy and meat animals.

Canada's approval of SmartStax corn exposed just how little Health Canada cares to investigate the potential risks of GM crops and foods - in the case of SmartStax, not at all. Now the process to approve SmartStax in Europe has identified many of the risk issues being ignored on both sides of the ocean. Confidential industry summaries of data as well as critiques by European experts show more studies must be done to determine any potential health and environmental risks.

No risk assessment in Canada

In July 2009, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced they had received approval in Canada and the US to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn SmartStax (it combines technologies from both companies). However, Health Canada did not actually assess SmartStax for human health safety. Because the individual eight GM traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators decided there was nothing new in combining the eight together. Health Canada assumed the corn was a harmless amalgam of GM traits and did not even issue any paperwork to rubberstamp its approval.

Codex to Consider Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods

Next week, committee members of Codex, the UN-sponsored would-be global regulator, will be reviewing guidelines for genetically engineered (GE) foods. The US delegation to the committee says-surprise-that no labeling is needed! An URGENT new Action Alert -the deadline to send comments is TODAY.

The Codex Committee on Food Labeling will meet May 9-13 in Québec City, Canada, where members will review the Codex guidelines on labeling food. Among the items for review are the Codex labeling standards for genetically engineered foods.

The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "Food Code") is a collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and other recommendations which supporters hope will become a global standard. The US is a Codex Committee member country.

In preparation of the upcoming meeting in Canada, the US delegates held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on April 25 to discuss their draft position that they will present in Québec. ANH-USA attended that meeting-and the US position is pretty dismal. The US draft position is open for public comment only through May 2, so we are sending this newsletter out a little early.