Food industry seeks voluntary GMO labeling - AP

MARY CLARE JALONICK | February 6, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — People who want to know more about genetically modified ingredients in their food would be able to get it on some packages, but not others, under a plan the industry is pushing.
Large food companies worried they might be forced to add "genetically modified" to packaging are proposing voluntary labeling of those engineered foods, so the companies could decide whether to use them or not.
The effort is an attempt to head off state-by-state efforts to require mandatory labeling. Recent ballot initiatives in California and Washington state failed, but several state legislatures are considering labeling requirements, and opponents of engineered ingredients are aggressively pushing for new laws in several states.
The move comes as consumers demand to know more about what's in their food. There's very little science that says genetically engineered foods are unsafe. But opponents say there's too much unknown about seeds that are altered in labs to have certain traits, and that consumers have a right to know if they are eating them. The seeds are engineered for a variety of reasons, many of them to resist herbicides or insects.
Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry's main trade group, said the decision on labels should rest with the Food and Drug Administration, which is set up to assess the safety of foods.
"It does not serve national food safety policy to leave these issues to political campaigns," she said.
The grocery manufacturers announced a partnership with 28 farm and food industry groups Thursday to push for the legislation. The groups include the National Corn Growers Association, the National Restaurant Association and the National Beverage Association, all industries that have seen pushback from consumers over modified ingredients.
The groups say mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking that engineered ingredients are unsafe.
The state laws could also create a complicated patchwork of labeling laws that would "increase, rather than reduce, consumer confusion," said Kraig Naasz of the American Frozen Food Institute, another member of the coalition.
The industries are lobbying members of Congress to introduce and pass a bill that would require FDA to create a voluntary label that would take precedence over any state laws. They are also pushing for FDA to do a safety review of new genetically engineered ingredients before they are sold in food. So far, FDA has not found safety issues with modified ingredients.
Theresa Eisenman, a spokeswoman for FDA, said food manufacturers are already allowed to label their foods as free of genetically modified ingredients. She said the agency "recognizes and appreciates" consumer interest in the issue.
"FDA has received citizen petitions regarding genetically engineered foods, including the labeling of such foods," she said. "The agency is currently considering those petitions and at this time has not made a decision, in whole or in part, regarding the petitions."
The companies are facing pressure from retailers as the conversation about modified ingredients has grown louder. Whole Foods announced last year that it plans to label GMO products in all its U.S. and Canadian stores within five years.
And some companies have decided to just remove the ingredients altogether, so no labels will be necessary. General Mills recently announced it would no longer use GMOs in its original Cheerios recipe.
It is unclear whether there is support for voluntary labels in Congress. Many lawmakers from farm states have defended the technology.
In May, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. that would have allowed states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.
Sanders' amendment to a wide-ranging farm bill was an attempt to clarify that states can require the labels, as several legislatures have moved toward putting such laws into place. Senators from farm states that use a lot of genetically modified crops strongly opposed the amendment, saying the issue should be left up to the federal government and that labels could raise costs for consumers.
The final farm bill, which Congress passed and sent to President Barack Obama this week, does not weigh in on genetically modified ingredients.
Opponents of the modified ingredients say the sentiment may change in Congress as more states wade into the labeling debate. Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington advocacy group that supports labeling, says he expects around 30 state legislatures to consider the issue this year.
Maine and Connecticut have already enacted labeling laws for engineered foods, but they won't go into effect until other states in the region follow suit. And Oregon may be the next state to consider a ballot measure on the issue.
Faber says momentum is building across the country for labeling, "not because consumers are concerned about the technology, but because consumers are demanding to know more and more about their food."

The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up—Here's Why

The food industry wants Congress to pass federal legislation that will keep labeling voluntary.


Activist Kalli Smith leads a crowd of more than 150 protesters in Wilmington, N.C., as part of a worldwide protest against Monsanto and GMOs in May 2013.
PHOTOGRAPH BY JEFF JANOWSKI, AP

Laura Parker
for National Geographic
Published January 11, 2014

For food activists like Dave Murphy, founder of http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/ , the news that Cheerios changed its recipe and will no longer contain any genetically modified ingredients couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

"It's a really big move for a company like General Mills," Murphy said. "It's a huge victory for consumers."

General Mills announced the change to America's best-known breakfast cereal this month, just as the political battle over genetically modified foods heats up on the national stage.

The titans of the food industry, General Mills included, have long and successfully opposed efforts in Congress to require mandatory labeling of genetically altered foods.

But instead of letting those proposals die quietly, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is moving assertively to push industry-authored legislation that would deem all GMO labeling voluntary. Such legislation would also specifically preempt "any state labeling laws that are not identical to the federal program," according to a memo detailing the industry's battle that surfaced this week on Politico.

The effort to thwart the states is regarded as a hedge against a vocal consumer movement that is making inroads at the state level.

Until now, the fiercest confrontations over GMOs have taken place outside Washington. Maine and Connecticut passed labeling laws last year. Proposals to require labeling of genetically altered foods are under consideration in 26 states. The New Hampshire legislature is expected to vote next week on a labeling bill there, and the Vermont Senate soon after.

The food industry spent almost $70 million to defeat ballot initiatives in California and Washington state; Murphy said his organization is working to put initiatives on the November ballot in Colorado and Oregon.

An Easy Change

About 90 percent of commodity crops used in the nation's food supply, including soybeans, sugar beets, and feed corn, are genetically engineered. They are known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The food industry resists labeling them out of concern that naming the presence of GMOs creates fear over food safety while it informs.

"It could be tantamount to putting a skull and crossbones on the labels," said an industry adviser in Washington who is familiar with the industry's new political strategy. "They are concerned about misleading consumers in every direction."

So why would General Mills, which is opposed to mandatory labeling, decide to purge Cheerios of GMOs now? For starters, it wasn't all that hard. There are no GMO oats, the primary ingredient in Cheerios. All General Mills had to do was switch to non-GMO sources of the small amount of cornstarch and sugar added to the cereal.

The change affects only the original Cheerios and not spinoff varieties like Honey Nut Cheerios.

"It's not much of a change at all," wrote Tom Forsythe, a General Mills spokesman in a posting on the company website. He added: "But it's not about safety. And it was never about pressure . . . We did it because we think consumers might embrace it."

"The Consumer Is King"

That's likely to be the case. While the Food and Drug Administration has deemed GMOs safe for human consumption, 9 in 10 Americans say they support the labeling of modified foods.

The Cheerios announcement is just the latest sign of a marketing trend aimed at capitalizing on consumer distrust of GMOs. Last spring, Whole Foods Market announced it will require all genetically altered products sold in its U.S. and Canadian stores to be labeled by 2018. (Trader Joe's said it eliminated GMO from products carrying the Trader Joe's label more than a decade ago.)

Chipotle Mexican Grill said it is working to eliminate genetically altered food from its menu, and Ben and Jerry's, which campaigned in support of the Washington state initiative, has announced plans to begin producing ice cream that is GMO-free by next year.

Still, the change in Cheerios is the first time an ordinary American product has dropped GMOs. The cereal is not a niche-market product, and General Mills' customer base is hardly the narrow slice of upscale patrons who shop at Whole Foods.

"It's a sign of the power of the growing grassroots movement," said Murphy, the food activist. "And a reminder that in America, the consumer is king."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140111-genetically-modified-organisms-gmo-food-label-cheerios-nutrition-science/#close-modal