Genetic Engineering News List Anti-GMO protests heat up this fall By Monica Eng Tribune Reporter 3:57 p.m. CDT, October 21, 2011  http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-food-policy-antigmo-movements-heat-up-this-fall-20111021,0,839760.story While last winter brought an unprecedented wave of genetically modified crop approvals from the U.S. government, this fall has brought an unprecedented wave of protests aimed at getting genetically modified foods labeled in the U.S.  Last weekend Right2Know marchers  finished up their trek from New York to the White House, where they rallied for mandatory labeling of GMOs in food. A couple of weeks ago Nature's Path released its new  infographic on GMOs in American food. And before that, Stonyfield Farms CEO Gary Hirshberg launched the broad-based "Just Label It" campaign petitioning the FDA to require GMO labeling similar to provisions in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. October also happens to be national Non-GMO Awareness month, a designation started last year by the Non-GMO Project,  which recently started offering a  voluntary, non-GMO seal for products that it verifies to be free of GMOs. But rather than a voluntary process, many activists want the FDA to require manufacturers to state whether their products contain GMOs. They would also like the FDA to establish a specific testing regimen aimed at ensuring that GMO foods are safe to eat before they are released on the market.  While the FDA does not require such safety tests, manufacturers can engage with the FDA in voluntary consultations before releasing their products. "FDA believes that its consultation process is working well and protective of the public health," a spokeswoman for the agency wrote to the Tribune.  GMO critics are highly skeptical of the FDA's efforts, however, in part because its food safety division is led by Michael Taylor, a former executive for Monsanto, one of the biggest GMO manufacturers in the world.  Critics also cite a report published earlier this year in Environmental Sciences Europe examining 19 studies on GMOs fed to mammals. It stated that current, "90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and  the  signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of  chronic  diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet  obligatory for any of  the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is  socially unacceptable in terms  of consumer health protection."  Labeling opponents say labels would needlessly alarm consumers and cause sales of those food products to drop. Hirshberg shows little sympathy:  "It's not the job of the American government to reject a policy because it will hurt the bottom line of six very profitable companies," said the Stonyfield CEO, whose organic products are by definition free of GMOs. "We have to ask ourselves what's in the best interest of us all. One thing I hope will come from this campaign is that every person running for Congress may have to go on the record about their stance on GMO labeling. The only way you can be against this is if you believe consumers don't deserve the right to know."  Right2Know March coordinator Adam Eidinger says his group is disappointed in the White House's lack of action on the issue, noting that as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would "let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified."  In an email to the Tribune, Eidinger said his group would focus next on a labeling proposition in California. "If [Obama] doesn't keep his promise, his re-election effort might as well say goodbye to thousands of food democracy activists we expect to mobilize in California who will be solely focused on getting a GMO labeling proposition passed."  GMOs are already a staple of the American diet. They a part of about 80 percent of all American processed foods, about 90 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S. and about 80 percent of U.S. corn. Attempts to get them labeled here are not new. So why the sudden surge of protests? "With the approval of GMO alfalfa and impending planting of GMO sweet corn we are getting extremely close to production for direct human consumption," Hirshberg said. "Previously, most genetically engineered crops were used for animal feed or used to make food ingredients. But now people will be eating them directly." The FDA has 180 days to respond to the "Just Label It" petition, and the Right2Know folks vow to make labeling of GMOs an issue in the upcoming presidential election. Most polls show that when asked specifically about GMO labeling, the vast majority of Americans favor it. What do you think? Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune Push for GMO Labeling on Food California voters may soon enact nation's first GMO label requirement By Conan Milner Epoch Times Staff Created: Oct 18, 2011 Last Updated: Oct 20, 2011 http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/push-for-gmo-labeling-on-food-62992.html News Analysis For better or worse, we've been eating the fruits of bioengineering for decades. While some consumers remain skeptical of the long-range health impact of this relatively recent technology, bioengineered products can be difficult to avoid, as the federal government doesn't require that packages identify these gene-altered foods. But one state may soon make a demand where the feds fall short: its own label requirement for lab-created ingredients.     We have the right to know what we are buying and putting in our children's mouths." Ballot initiative campaign website. The organization behind the proposed labeling law-the Organic Consumers Association-needs to collect 500,000-plus signatures to see their initiative on the 2012 California ballot. If enough signatures are collected, it will give California voters a chance to decide if the state will become the first in the nation with a mandatory label requirement for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). "It's a basic consumer right we are asking for-given the conflicting data and our mistrust in an industry that has been proven to hide negative findings, we have the right to know what we are buying and putting in our children's mouths," states the 2012 ballot initiative campaign on their labelgmos.org website. Farmers have long used techniques (such as hybridization and selective breeding) to exploit desirable traits in both plants and animals, but the technology to manipulate the actual DNA of an organism and mix its genes with an unrelated species is a very recent phenomenon. According to supporters of the California ballot initiative, there is enough data to suggest health risks associated with this new technology, and wary consumers have the right to avoid them. Despite decades of public outcry to label and even ban this lab-created food, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has seen no need for identifying bioengineered products. Since 1992 FDA policy states there is "no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding." Other governments have come to a different conclusion. In 1998 the European Union required labels for bioengineered food, and many other countries around the world have since made similar requirements. As a result, many U.S.-produced foods can't be sold overseas, as there isn't proper labeling to identify the product's bioengineered ingredients. After facing a dead-end in changing federal label requirements, U.S.-based GMO label advocates have since turned their efforts to enacting laws at the state level. While California may become the first state to require labels, it isn't the first to try. Oregon attempted a similar initiative in 2002-Measure 27; but a coalition of biotech industries mounted a convincing ad campaign that prompted voters to doubt the value of the measure. Companies such as Monsanto, DuPont, General Mills, and PepsiCo joined forces against Measure 27 in the Coalition Against Costly Labeling Laws. Their $5.5 million campaign hit voters where it always hurts: their wallets. "What would Measure 27 do?" the Coalition asked Oregon voters. "Measure 27 is a badly written and costly labeling law that would: create a complex, misleading labeling scheme for food products; dump more red tape and regulations on family farmers, grocers, and restaurants; create a new state bureaucracy that would cost taxpayers hundreds millions of dollars; and force Oregon residents to pay millions more in higher food and beverage prices." With several billion dollars invested in GMO products, this same coalition is likely to pour money into swaying California voters as well. The industry assures consumers that their gene-altered products are not only safe to eat, but also save money by increasing crop yields, and benefit the environment by reducing the use of pesticides. But unlike other technological innovations, the biotech food industry is not interested in identifying its creations from their natural counterparts. For all their proposed benefits, public stigma against GMOs has convinced industry leaders that identifying their technologically-enhanced food on store shelves would be bad for business. "What's the issue? If they are so great, why not advertise them?" asks labelgmos.org. "Why does the industry that profits from them fight labeling so vehemently and put so many of their resources into keeping their presence in our foods a secret? Why are corporate rights continually given precedence over consumer rights?" The Genetic Engineering Blog is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.