|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • California's GMO food-label ballot bill could have nationwide impact

    Proposition 37 has mixed chances of passing, polls show
  • WASHINGTON — California has long shaped agricultural and environmental practices nationwide, and an initiative on Tuesday's ballot could frame the growing national movement over labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
    • email print
  • WASHINGTON — California has long shaped agricultural and environmental practices nationwide, and an initiative on Tuesday's ballot could frame the growing national movement over labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
    Such ingredients come from crops — in particular soybeans and corn — that have had their DNA scientifically altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. California voters will decide Tuesday whether they want to require food with genetically modified ingredients to be labeled when it's sold in retail outlets. Such products could not be labeled as "natural" if the initiative passes.
    Supporters say success at the ballot box would bring one of the biggest consumer markets and food producers in the country in line with labeling laws in 61 other countries. The issue is far bigger than California, said Stacy Malkan with the California Right to Know campaign, which launched the initiative.
    "It's really the first time we've had a national conversation about genetically engineered foods in the United States in a major way," she said. "That in and of itself is a significant achievement."
    Polls show the California initiative, known as Proposition 37, has mixed chances of passage.
    If it does pass, California could provide momentum for national labeling efforts, which seek to draw more attention to the safety of genetically modified foods. That includes one campaign, led by a veteran organic producer, to get the Food and Drug Administration to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods before they go to consumers.
    "The California effort has served to absolutely elevate awareness about this issue," said Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of the organic yogurt producer Stonyfield Farm and also chairman of the Just Label It campaign, which is pushing for national labeling.
    Americans have been genetically engineering foods for nearly two decades, especially in processed foods such as sodas, cereals, salad dressings and baked goods. Many contain corn syrup, soy-based emulsifiers, canola oil or other ingredients derived from biotech crops, which are engineered to fight pests and tolerate herbicides. Most animal feed is derived from genetically modified crops, too.
    The only way to avoid foods with genetically modified ingredients is to eat organic foods, which U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines say cannot be genetically modified.
    The FDA's current oversight, which dates to the first Bush administration, is based on the agency's findings that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to conventionally produced foods, and that no labeling is required.
    In 1996, the agency developed procedures for developers who intend to bring bioengineered foods to the market. Developers must meet with the agency to identify and discuss safety, nutritional or other regulatory issues regarding bioengineered food. The Environmental Protection Agency conducts similar reviews for foods that have been genetically modified to withstand herbicides.
    A campaign opposed to the California labeling initiative has been boosted by $45 million raised from biotech companies, grocery manufacturers and the soft drink industry. Top contributors to the anti-labeling campaign, called No on 37, include biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and BASF. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods and Nestle all have donated more than $1 million to oppose the labeling campaign.
    The pro-labeling campaign has raised about $7 million. It's supported by advocacy organizations such as the Environmental Working Group and Public Citizen. Mercola Health Resources, which sells nutritional supplements, and the Organic Consumers Fund, a lobbying group, are major backers. It also has support from organic producers such as Amy's Kitchen and Dr. Bronner's Soaps, two of its biggest corporate contributors.
Reader Reaction
      • calendar