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

Center For Food Safety, 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  "FDA's two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked.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  The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not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.


View the Original article

Whole Foods Refuses to Support GMO-Mandatory Labeling Efforts in California

Recently, our intrepid real food activists and California Label GMO pioneers Pamm Larry and Stacey Hall reached out to Whole Foods Market asking them to allow educational events at their stores and for volunteers to be able to collect signatures from Californians who want mandatory labeling of GMOs--something that over 70% of people polled supported.  Below is their response.  We find it hard to believe that Whole Foods, ostensibly committed to healthy food and real choices, is against truth-in-labeling.  Please visit their Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/wholefoods or call your local Whole Foods and tell the manager that you would like them to allow signature gathering at their stores.  We have a real chance at victory in this campaign.  Let Whole Foods know they should be with us, not against us.

Hi Marci,
Thanks for getting back to us.  We are disappointed that Whole Foods is not interested in some of our suggestions.   And just to be clear, because it was not specifically addressed, we need to know whether Whole Foods will allow us to gather signatures in front of your stores in the Fall of 2011 for the California Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act of 2012?  Signature gathering is expected to start in October so we need to know your answer by Friday, September 23rd at 5pm.  If we do not receive a response, we will assume that Whole Foods will not support signature gathering in front of your stores.  While we appreciate your strategy, polls show that consumers want mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients.  We hope that you will choose to support what your customers have repeatedly requested which is mandatory labeling.

I look forward to hearing from you.

View the Original article

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.

View the Original article

Rally at Nashville Farmers' Market Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

By Jenny Upchurch
"What's GMO stand for?" a driver yelled at Flo Oakes and her group outside the Nashville Farmers' Market on Saturday morning.

"Genetically modified organisms," they hollered back.

A few dozen people held banners and shouted slogans here as part of a nationwide rally demanding action to help consumers identify from where food comes.

Genetically modified organisms have had changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The changes make them resistant to viruses and chemicals. Typical plants and products include soybeans, corn and canola and cotton seed oil.

"I'm not a biologist, not a scientist,"Oakes said. "I feel like we're being guinea pigs. We have never put genes together like this and then put them in the environment without proper scrutiny and testing."

Activists want genetically modified foods labeled and they want limits on how closely such plants can be grown to organic agriculture to prevent cross-contamination. They also want more research on the safety of genetically modified organisms.

View the Original article

Misguided FDA Opposition to Labeling Could Leave Public Permanently in the Dark About GE Animals

After a two-day public hearing on the approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption, the AquAdvantage GE salmon, FDA held a public hearing today to discuss whether or not these GE fish should be labeled as such should they be approved. A 60-day public comment period on the labeling issue will be open until November 22, 2010.

"This transgenic salmon is the first GE animal intended for food, yet the human health impacts of eating these GE fish are completely unknown," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director at the Center for Safety  (CFS). "These GE fish also pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and the marine environment." These "unknowns" were raised repeatedly at yesterday's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) hearing, and the Committee was unable to come to any conclusion as to the safety or efficacy of the GE salmon.  The hearing on labeling is premature given that the VMAC has not approved this salmon for human or animal consumption.

The public has not been quiet about the possible approval of GE salmon. In fact, over 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBounty's GE salmon.  CFS and a coalition of allied groups also submitted 172,000 comments from individuals opposing the approval and urging clear, mandatory labeling should the fish be approved despite overwhelming public opposition (CFS comments to the VMAC and the joint letters can be found on our website).  

Announcements by FDA officials and speakers today suggest that the Agency may not require labeling of GE salmon should it be approved. While FDA is operating under the fiction that transgenic animals are "new drugs," the Agency does not feel that they need to be labeled in the same way that drugs are.

A Lake Research Partners poll  commissioned by Food & Water Watch and released yesterday found that 91 percent of Americans believe FDA should not allow genetically engineered fish and meat into the marketplace; 83 percent felt strongly that it should not be allowed.  Additionally, a 2008 Consumers Union nationwide poll  found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.

In his comments today, CFS Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell asserted that "labeling in the 21st Century cannot be based on 20th Century policy decisions."  The FDA currently uses its 1992 interpretation of "material" to inform its decisions on labeling, an interpretation that occurred prior to commercialization of any transgenic animal. 


View the Original article