Dear Readers,
As we near the beginning of signature gathering for the state and national GMO labeling campaign you will be hearing a lot about how this will be a huge expense and will make our food more expensive. So I did some research and found that this issue has already been studied and the result is surprising - the cost will be "hardly significant". See the articles below for the reasoning.
Be sure to make your signature does count. You have not yet signed anything for the California Ballot initiative as that part of the campaign begins on February 18 and you will have to sign something in person, not on a web site. Feel free to remind your local representives how important this issue is for you and your family. Go to your state GMO initiative web site. In California it is www.labelgmos.org. For the petition to the FDA go to http://www.right2knowmarch.org/.
Onward,
Thomas
Testing expert says labeling GMOs does not increase food costs
Friday, February 18, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
http://www.naturalnews.com/031399_GMOs_food_labeling.html
(NaturalNews) Prof. Chris Viljoen from the GMO Testing Laboratory at the University of the Free State in South Africa recently wrote a piece in BusinessDay countering false claims that mandatory labeling requirements for genetically-modified (GM) foods increase food costs. According to his analysis, mandatory GM labeling is good for both business and consumers.
In contrast to current U.S. policy, many nations around the world, including Australia, New Zealand, China, Brazil, and the entire European Union, require that food containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients be labeled as such. And South Africa is now considering joining them as well. But the proposition has sparked a wave of misinformation from naysayers who insist that labeling requirements will increase food costs.
According to Viljoen, one such claim that mandatory labeling will increase food costs by up to 20 percent is patently false. An comprehensive study out of the EU found that GMO labeling requirements, depending on their stringency, increased food costs in Europe by a mere 0.17 percent at the most, which is hardly significant.
Viljoen also states in an article that there is virtually no cost increase for businesses to have their foods laboratory tested for GMOs, since such foods already have to be tested for other things like contaminants, additives, and colors. And in mose cases, producers already know if a conventional product they sell contains GM ingredients because many popular staple crops like corn and soy are almost always GM unless they are organic or specifically sold as non-GM. So any contention that testing is unreasonably burdensome and costly is pure nonsense, he says.
The real issue is not cost, but rather the effect that labeling has on consumer preference. Powerful biotechnology companies like Monsanto know that if given the choice, consumers will almost always choose non-GM food over GM food. So they work overtime to prevent labeling policies from being enacted, which is what they have thus far successfully done in the U.S.
Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031399_GMOs_food_labeling.html#ixzz1lwucODzu
Here is the source article from Business Day
http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=133250
'Genetic labelling' claims wrong | CHRIS VILJOEN | |
Published: 2011/02/03 07:39:05 AM
|
It was with interest that I read recent press articles about calls to label modified foods. I was most interested in the comments on the perceived link between the threshold for labelling and the cost of labelling. First , whether the threshold is 5% or 1%, there is no cost difference in laboratory testing - I should know as I run the GMO Testing Facility that performs routine genetic modification detection in SA. Further, the regulations make provision for companies to assume an ingredient contains genetically modified matter if it was derived from a crop for which there is a genetically modified equivalent being produced in SA, such as maize or soybean. In such a case, no laboratory testing would be required, with no additional cost to the company. Compared to this, companies that want to indicate an ingredient has not been genetically modified would be required to verify this using laboratory tests - but this is no different to what is being practised. Second , the proposition that genetic modification labelling will increase food costs 10% to 20% is unfounded and based on misinformation. In a comprehensive study in the European Union (EU) it was estimated that the added cost to food of genetic modification labelling ranged from 0,01% to 0,17%, depending on the stringency required. The EU system for genetic modification labelling is considerably more stringent than in SA and from this it is reasonable to suggest that the labelling cost to food would be much lower in SA. There has never been a documented report that genetic modification labelling has led to a cost increase in food anywhere. What is being implemented in SA can be considered a minimum level compared to genetic modification labelling in other countries, including Australia, Brazil, China, New Zealand and the EU. Third , the comment that some food products "cannot be accurately analysed or labelled because they do not contain detectable protein" is misleading. It is true that processing destroys protein, making it undetectable, but the world standard for performing genetic modification analysis on food is not based on detecting protein but rather DNA (the molecule responsible for making the protein). DNA is considerably more stable than protein and genetic modification detection laboratories around the world routinely analyse highly processed food ingredients, including starches and oils. It is true, however, that extremely processed products cannot be tested accurately for genetically modified content as even the DNA may be destroyed. In such cases the ingredients used to make the extremely processed product can be tested . Finally, genetic modification labelling is no different to labelling foods for the presence of additives or colorants - common practice in SA. There is no report that this practice has resulted in any food cost increase either. If consumer rights are truly autonomous, genetic modification labelling should be no exception. Prof Chris Viljoen GMO Testing Laboratory, University of the Free State
http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=133250
|
