The label fight comes north

4 free views left!

By Tracy Warner
Editorial Page Editor

Friday, January 4, 2013

It didn’t fly in California. Maybe it will take off here in Washington. The sponsors of Initiative 522 filed petitions with about 350,000 signatures with the Secretary of State Thursday for the measure that would require “conspicuous” labels on any commercial food containing genetically modified ingredients.

The measure is an initiative to the Legislature. The Legislature may adopt it, offer an alternative, or send it on for a vote of the people. The latter choice is always most likely. If the usual patterns are followed we will be treated to a new season of accusations and counter accusations, emotional and dubious argument, big money thrown around on behalf of one special interest or another, cloaking a desire for commercial gain, all over a requirement with no real point other than to scare people away from market rivals and the kinds of food one side dislikes.

This is what happened in California with Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. After a long and emotional campaign voters rejected the measure in November. Washington’s measure appears substantially similar, headed by similar arguments.

The initiative requires a label on any food containing ingredients produced from organisms with genetic material altered by technological intervention rather than natural mutation, otherwise known as genetic engineering. Scientists use recombinant DNA techniques to exploit or enhance beneficial traits that allow food to be grown more efficiently and less expensively. Agribusiness sponsors the research and sells the seeds, farmers grow the food, it is processed or fed to livestock and eventually ingested by you and me. So far crops that make use of genetically modified seed mostly include oil seeds like Canola and soy, plus corn and cotton. Growers of fresh fruits important in Washington, like apples, pears and cherries, have stayed with traditional breeding techniques and show no inclination to change. Presumably the initiative would not effect them.

The first premise of the initiative is that consumers have a “right to know” if their food contains genetically modified ingredients, but for reasons that aren’t precisely clear. There are a number of scientific studies, from such esteemed groups as the National Academy of Sciences, that have concluded there is no evidence GMO crops are any more dangerous, healthy or unhealthy than any other food. GMO foods have been part of the chain for two decades with no discernible effect on humans or anything else. They are substantially no different than food produced by traditional methods of gene manipulation. So what is the purpose of requiring a label, if not to scare consumers toward some other competing product? We have a “right to know” what? That food is food?

It is true, some farmers are inherently suspicious of GMO foods, as they are wary of being tied to a single corporate supplier of expensive patented seed, or that they might be separated from crucial overseas customers by governments that exploit the use of GMO seed for protectionist purposes. I don’t know how labels in supermarkets will change that.

I have an apple on my desk today. It is a new variety, produced by a university plant breeder who wanted me to give it a try. It is the product of conventional techniques, its DNA modified by human intervention we consider “natural.” But it is no more natural than any other food that has been radically improved by humans, for human benefit. I do not fear this apple. I expect it to be tasty. It doesn’t need a label. If the breeder had used some different technique, it still wouldn’t.

Tracy Warner’s column appears Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.com or 665-1163.

» Recommend this story.

» 27 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

davidmoa 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Tracy, the only argument against this I read was that it is a scare tactic. Do you feel the same about the requirement to label country of origin for fresh foods, or label seafood as wild or farmed? Since you work in the information industry, it seems odd for you to be opposed to greater information availability. The US has by far the most industrialized food supply in the world, and one might argue that is one cause for our growing obesity as a nation. GMO's are the next phase of industrial farming.

JimboBear 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Perhaps people need to worry more about how to procure food than they do about what's in it? What's next? Food banks that won't accept our donation because our product has been genetically modified? Or will the fear mongers be happy with simply telling me that GMO's will poison me? The best way I know to state my opinion of this movement is much like Mr. Warner's. Hogwash!

The sad part is that now we can pretty well assume the state legislators will waste some more of our tax dollars in discussion and review of this issue and still not know the first darn thing about it, but they'll put it on the ballot anyway so that the rest of us will believe they are doing something.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimbo,

New York City already rejects donations from local synagogues due to their not knowing its fat or sodium content.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

JimboBear 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I haven't time right now to check out your link, but NOTHING I hear about New York City surprises me. If there is one place in the world that I'd rather not be than California it would have to be NYC. It should be condemned and destroyed for violation of all that is good in life. What a disaster area!

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I've got family in the Chicago area who say similar things about their hometown. ;)

wonderstar 4 months, 2 weeks ago

GMO foods tend to reduce costs. Organic foods tend to inflate costs. Neither one has a significant impact on the nutritional value of the foods we eat.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hard to argue that. Thanks to GMOs, the palmer pigweed can grow to combine stopping size in three weeks now. This causes an increase in chemicals, and with it increases in risk and expense.

Naturally, insects are rapidly evolving around GMOs and appear to be adapting famously.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

JimboBear 4 months, 2 weeks ago

100% agreed Dan! Sounds like a "no brainer" to me.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimbo, again, I would disagree. When you get the time, here's a good article indicating past crops were factually more nutritious than present day varieties:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Nutrient-Decline-Industrial-Farming.aspx?page=2

Any "expansion in yields" we're seeing comes at a cost.

And so it goes that that backyard, heirloom tomato patch of yours could well become a revolutionary act. :)

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, we can see where you stand on this story. I do respect your opinion on this, but vehemently disagree.

The California initiative included a proviso giving the individual standing to sue. In that respect, I fear it went too far. As for the "safety" of GMO's? Well, that well and truly IS debatable as research in other countries shows.

Algeria and Egypt have tough GMO laws. In Egypt, GMOs must be tested and approved first. In Algeria, planting and distribution are illegal.

In Asia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan and the Philippines all have laws limiting GMO foods. Both Sri Lanka and Thailand had bans on imported GMOs as early as 2001, while the rest of the countries have had more recent bans.

In Europe, Norway, Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg and Portugal have put in place GMO restrictions. France made an important step in the no-GMO movement by specifically defining exactly what "GMO-free" means when it comes to food labeling. Ireland has banned all growing and cultivating of GMO foods and the European Union -- a governing coalition of European countries -- has considered a Europe-wide banning of GMO foods.

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has banned the growing of GMO foods and the importing of GMO wheat.

While the United States still largely allows for the growth and import of GMO foods and does not demand food labeling, South American countries such as Brazil and Paraguay have restrictions on GMO foods.

We can also look at potential effects of GMO crops on honey bees: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=negative+effects+of+gmos+on+honey+bees&oq

Even the Russians are making a reality tv series based on French research that Monsanto went well out of its way to "debunk." http://rt.com/news/gmo-experiment-online-rats-240/

And nevermind that our current Chief of the USDA, Tom Vilsack, was little more than a Monsanto shill during his tenure as Iowa Governor, doing a great disservice to family farmers from that desk, while supporting and promoting corporate-friendly policy.

Nevermind either the appointment of Micheal Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer.

And the list goes on. And on.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

As a Libertarian, I am against mandatory labeling on principle. It is any company's right to label their products as "GMO Free" if they so choose--just as it should have been cherry growers' right to label health benefits of their product; and the late Bert Grant's right to put USDA nutrition labels on every bottle of his Celtic Ale (both moves were blocked by our benevolent federal government)

However, we should go into this debate with our eyes wide open. GMO crops are suspect just about everywhere else on the planet BUT here. And the gool ol' US of A just so happens to be home to all the genetic research.

As for potential crop yield increases? There were always other roads to follow. Just turn some college class onto the Ciba-Geigy effect sometime, and see what happens if ever we can get that door unlocked. http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=23

And if memory serves me correctly, it was just a few short years ago that Cary Condotta co sponsored a bill that would have required GMO labeling on any food product produced in this state. That touched off a fierce debate in Olympia and yet not one word of it was printed in this paper.

Yet all too often is seems, there is much that doesn't get printed here. This naturally leaves one to wonder: if one of the larger packers in the region decided it wanted to market a GMO apple, would you feel duty bound to pave the way with the locals?

Not once has the "family friendly" Wenatchee World ever editorialized on the negative effects of the "global gap" program on family-scale orchards in spite of scores of them having gone out of business along the 97 corridor due to the onerous, nonsensical compliance costs of global gap.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

And here's another list of reasons why this issue is far more complicated than Mr. Warner would have us believe.

If one is to understand GMO crops, one simply must take a wider view. Any research on the matter, if it is to be honest, must do the same:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

davebugg 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Let those who produce GMO-free or Organic foods provide whatever labels that they want on their own products. Make their labels as big and bold as they want to. It should be a label 'opt-in' only for those who wish to do such labeling. It certainly isn't the job of the producers who are not wanting to market non gmo foods to hurt themselves by portraying their product in a negative light. That is nothing but a marketing campaign ploy by the non gmo interests to increase their market share.

If the consumer is too unwilling to spend the time to check labels for non-GMO foods, then being selective and picky about food ingestion is pretty low on their priority concerns to begin with.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

But if we were to apply the same set of standards used to get alar off the market years ago, then GMO's would have to be banned outright.

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take on this issue in principle, it is nearly impossible to avoid GMO's in the first place.

Figure anything that's ever eaten alfalfa, anything with corn, and anything with soy--for starters.

I, for one, feel that is is the consumers' right to know. Given everything else that must legally be labeled in this nation, then there's no ethical nor legal prohibition on it and in fact, the only hurdle to GMO labeling so far has been the biotech companies themselves.

Given that any product shipped overseas must be labeled for GMO's, the lists already exist.

Knowing that, it would be no insurmountable hurdle nor expense to inform consumers.

Besides: if these biotech conglomerates were proud of their product, why wouldn't they want it on the label? If it's that good for all of humanity, why won't they fly it proudly?

cbuick 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Like it or not, GMO apples and cherries will be denied entry into the many countries that ban them. Some countries are all or nothing in their import restrictions. If even one GMO apple appears in a shipment from the USA, all apples from our growers will be banned.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Like they did with our beef not so long ago. One BSE positive cow in nearby Mabton shut down US beef exports overnight, and slowed them for years after.

Labeling is no huge hurdle- and if people are fine with eating frankenfoods, let them.

But let also them who would choose not to make informed choices.

Given the hidden nature of what's what, perhaps a legislative solution is necessary.

Chuck 4 months, 2 weeks ago

And let's not forget the farmers who've been caught in the grift:

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

mizmaus 4 months, 1 week ago

I cannot accept the combining of human genes with our food, as is being done already with some rice,potato, and tomatoe varieties. A few seconds looking will return quite a few like this one: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/03/human-genes-in-my-food-yes-please.html For this reason and others, I support clear labeling for any genetically modified food products, including seeds

karilg 4 months, 1 week ago

I would love to have the foods that are GMO labeled!!!!!! It is something we are encouraged to avoid for my little guys esophagus disease. At least let people make an informed choice.

mizmaus 4 months, 1 week ago

I started with this: http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/ After awhile, I didn't need it because it was easy to learn what to look for. I had to change my diet some. Being vegan already helped. California had the issue on the ballot and it was defeated. I figure that if big ag is willing to spend billions to prevent me from knowing what's in my food, I'll choose another product.

karilg 4 months, 1 week ago

Thank you! I will definitely use this!!!!

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

Thank-you! I've just added that list to my laptop and a back-up drive.

karilg 4 months, 1 week ago

me too!

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

The entire premise of Mr. Warner's editorial here is a classic bait-and-switch. An "apples to oranges" comparison if one ever was.

Consider his last paragraph: "I have an apple on my desk today. It is a new variety, produced by a university plant breeder who wanted me to give it a try. It is the product of conventional techniques, its DNA modified by human intervention we consider “natural.” But it is no more natural than any other food that has been radically improved by humans, for human benefit. I do not fear this apple. I expect it to be tasty. It doesn’t need a label. If the breeder had used some different technique, it still wouldn’t."

The problem with this logic is simply that in the given example of selective breeding, the farmer is crossing two or more species of corn. This is a far cry from the genetic engineer, who splices in a hodgepodge of dozens of individual genes from completely unrelated species.

The end result of this, like that of the mythological Dr. Frankenstein's monster, cannot likely be accurately predicted or modeled in the long term. To prounounce these crops "safe" simply because they are allegedly similar enough to other allegedly "safe" crops produced by different methods is patenly insane. Yet in addition to not getting labels, we're also not getting any "official" long term testing in this country-- which refuses to look at such tests from other nations. Tests that tend to prove things the Monsantos, ADM's, and Cargills of the world would just as soon the consumer didn't know about.

With independent research coming from outside sources such as France and Russia, we certainly have enough to give us pause as to the long term effects of these freaks and already you can see consumers reacting to the GMO trend by taking great pains to avoid the stuff. They're voting with their dollars in increasing numbers, picketing Monsanto headquarters, and sharing all kinds of information online.

Mr Warner, if it was your point in this column to ease our collective consciousness about these crops, look again at the comments from your readers. These questions we're asking about GMO's aren't going away antyime soon.

Labeling would be honest. Up front. And if you're right, labels will do no financial harm to them who would market such crops. As an editor, one would think that it would be your job to inform us. Clearly it seems that there are occasions when you disagree with the asssertion that the public has any overriding right to know.