http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/02/v-print/4383184/dont-ignore-public-demand-for.html
Editorial: Don't ignore public demand for information
Go to any fast-food restaurant and you can readily find all manner of information about the number of calories, carbohydrate count, and amount of fat in the burgers, sandwiches and uniformly shaped chicken nuggets. The corporations even show their environmental consciousness by disclosing that their napkins are made with recycled fiber, and are processed with water-based ink. Consumers increasingly demand such detail, and question everything from the political order to the fundamentals of science to what the nation's agricultural corporations tell us is safe and healthy. Against this backdrop, an organization called Just Label It recently submitted an online petition signed by a million Americans calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require that genetically modified food be labeled as such. The FDA responded last week by saying it needs more time to respond. That is not an acceptable answer. Consumers overwhelmingly want more information, not less. They ought to be accommodated. The push for labeling of genetically modified food comes as Monsanto Co., the leading producer of genetically modified products, seeks to expand its reach beyond corn and soy into produce seeds. Monsanto opposes labeling efforts, as do other major biotech firms and grocery manufacturers, and has significant political clout. Monsanto spent $36.4 million lobbying in Washington, D.C., in the five years between 2007 and 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Major food producers no doubt fear losing market share to organic products. But if the products are safe, as their scientists conclude, they should have no qualms about offering consumers that basic information. As the FDA mulls over its response, and agribusiness digs its collective heels in, states are beginning to act. Legislation is pending in Vermont. By the end of this month, promoters of a California initiative that would require labeling will submit signatures to place the measure on the November ballot. Monsanto, grocery manufacturers, the California Farm Bureau, the California Chamber of Commerce and others are gearing up for a major campaign. Voters should prepare for a campaign that easily could cost tens of millions of dollars. On many issues, states rightly control their own fate. But product labeling clearly involves interstate commerce. A state-by-state solution is not wise. Food corporations could short-circuit the campaign by offering disclosure. If a product contains genetically engineered food - and most if not all processed food does - grocery manufacturers should say so. If they don't act voluntarily, the FDA should step in. The FDA has concluded that there is no material difference between food produced from genetically modified seeds and heirloom seeds. Reputable scientists have found no proof that genetically engineered food is unsafe. A government-approved label could state both points. A label disclosing whether a product is genetically modified doesn't need to take a stand one way or another about safety. One analogy can be seen on any wine label. The federal government oversees appellations informing wine drinkers where grapes are grown, without offering any opinion about the quality of the grapes or wine. A November 2010 poll by Thomson Reuters conducted for National Public Radio showed that only a fourth of Americans believed they understood what genetically modified food is. Most people were unsure whether genetically modified food is safe, although people with more education tended to have somewhat more confidence in its safety. The polls showed that 60 percent of people are willing to eat genetically modified vegetables, fruit and grain. But 93 percent of the people surveyed believed that the food should be labeled. Corporations overlook such opinions at their peril. ----------------------------
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64409.shtml
FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign
By Mike Barrett
Natural Society
Friday, Mar 30, 2012
While the Food and Drug Administration has seemingly reached the limit for unbelievable behavior, the company's decisions continue to astound and appall consumers and health activists alike.
In the agency's latest decision, undoubtedly amazing thousands of individuals yet again, the FDA virtually erased 1 million signatures and comments on the 'Just Label It' campaign calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods.
The 'Just Label It" campaign has gotten more signatures than any campaign in history for the labeling of genetically modified foods. Since October of 2011, the campaign has received over 900,000 signatures, with 55 politicians joining in on the movement. So what's the problem here?
Evidently, the FDA counts the amount of signatures not by how many people signed, but how many different individual letters are brought to it. To the FDA, even tens of thousands of signatures presented on a single petition are counted as - you guessed it - a single comment.
This is how, despite over a million supporters being gathered by the petition, the FDA concluded a count of only 394.
'This is an election year and there are more than a million people who say this is important to them. This petition has nothing to do with whether or genetically modified foods are dangerous. We don't label dangerous foods, we take them off the shelves. This petition is about a the citizens' right to know what they are eating and whether or not these foods represent a novel change.' said Andrew Kimbrell an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the partner groups on the Just Label It campaign.
The argument as to whether genetically modified foods are dangerous is a whole discussion on its own, but for the FDA to completely sidestep away from the labeling of GM foods is completely and utterly irresponsible.
See: Monsanto, a half-century of health scandals by Soren Seelow, translated by Siv O'Neall for Axis of Logic
Consumers have every right to know what they are consuming. Needless to say, biotechnology giant Monsanto is against GMO labeling, claiming that it would mislead consumers since GMOs are 'perfectly safe'. Of course there is plenty of evidence proving that GMOs are not completely safe, and how they affect life in the long-term is questionable to say the least.
Either way, there is enough controversy surrounding the issue which is cause for alarm for millions of people, and Monsanto's opinion on GMOs safety is a sorry excuse for not labeling foods as GM. Is the FDA avoiding such an issue because so many ties exist between genetically modified makers like Monsanto and the agency?
The bottom line is that you have the right to know what is in your food, and what your food is. Denying that right, whether it be by the essential deletion of millions of signatures on a petition, or by ignoring the voices of thousands of people on the street, is stripping the rights of consumers.
|
