Organic Consumers Opposes Warren-Udall Efforts on FDA Voluntary GMO Labeling
Source: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, OCA, September 26, 2013
FDA Voluntary GMO Labeling Could End State GMO Labeling Laws and Legitimate Non-GMO Certified Labels
FINLAND, Minn. - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today announced its opposition to efforts by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to push the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to finalize its 2001 guidance on voluntary GMO labeling. The OCA called on its million-plus network to petition Warren and Udall to rescind their letter to the FDA, and to instead, support states rights to enact laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms and/or support the Boxer bill, S. 809, a federal law that calls for mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Asking the FDA to rule on voluntary labeling of GMOs is a bad idea, plain and simple, said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. Theres a good chance, based on past FDA rulings, that if the FDA finalizes its guidance on voluntary labeling, it could mean the end of states rights to label GMOs, and the end of existing, legitimate certified non-GMO labels.
Frankly, were surprised that Sen. Warren, who has a stellar track record as a consumer advocate, would choose this path, which is endorsed by both Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Ninety-three percent of Americans want mandatory not voluntary GMO labeling laws. We hope the Senators Warren and Udall will reconsider and rescind their request to the FDA immediately.
On August 22, Sen. Warren and Sen. Udall sent a joint letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration urging the agency . . . to finalize its guidance document on labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) marketed as food or food additives. Absent in either the letter, or a press release from Sen. Warrens office, was any mention of the word voluntary. However, the actual FDA document, Docket Number 00D-1598, referenced in the letter clearly applies only to voluntary, not mandatory labeling.
If the FDA heeds Senators Warren and Udall, the agency could use the voluntary guidance to preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. Currently, states have the right to enact GMO labeling laws precisely because the FDA has not formally ruled on GMO labeling. Once it does, state laws could be overturned.
The FDAs guidance on voluntary GMO labeling also could be used to put an end to existing, legitimate voluntary non-GMO labeling efforts. By allowing the FDA, which has previously (and controversially) ruled that GMO and non-GMO foods are substantially equivalent, the FDA could rule against non-GMO or GMO-free labels on the basis that they mislead consumers by implying that theres a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.
Senators Warren and Udall both have so far failed to support federal legislation that would have required mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs. Both also voted against an amendment to the farm bill that would have protected states rights to label GMOs.
More information here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28376.cfm
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action.
Read more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28387.cfm
PRESS RELEASE, including link to petition, reproduced in full.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Anyone know what's going on here??
Javaman
(62,510 posts)did you read the article?
Warren is demanding that manditory labeling is required not voluntary.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)From the article snippet in the OP:
If the FDA heeds Senators Warren and Udall, the agency could use the voluntary guidance to preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. Currently, states have the right to enact GMO labeling laws precisely because the FDA has not formally ruled on GMO labeling. Once it does, state laws could be overturned.
Twice because I wasn't sure. That's when I posted.
So it looks like Udall and Warren are giving GMO's a bit of a pass. I'm trying to understand that.
bananas
(27,509 posts)As the OP states:
The FDAs guidance on voluntary GMO labeling also could be used to put an end to existing, legitimate voluntary non-GMO labeling efforts. By allowing the FDA, which has previously (and controversially) ruled that GMO and non-GMO foods are substantially equivalent, the FDA could rule against non-GMO or GMO-free labels on the basis that they mislead consumers by implying that theres a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.
She also voted against a bill earlier this year, as reported by PR Watch:
U.S. Senate Votes Down State GMO Labeling
by Rebekah Wilce May 29, 2013 - 7:43am
In the midst of a week of debates and speeches about the federal farm bill (S. 954), supporters of the right to know whether or not food products contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) suffered a setback on May 23. An amendment (S. Amdt. 965) sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) would have helped states to pass laws requiring labeling of GMO foods. (Vermont recently made history when its House of Representatives passed such a labeling bill, as CMD reported.) Sander's amendment lost, 27-71.
<snip>
Among the surprising votes against the amendment were those of Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reached out to both Senators' offices for comment, but did not receive responses. Massachusetts is a stronghold of the biotechnology industry, and Wisconsin grows quite a bit of genetically engineered corn and soy.
Meanwhile, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) voted for the bill, marking a switch from their no-votes when a similar amendment was introduced in 2012. Food and Water Watch, a non-profit group that works to ensure clean water and safe food, notes that other notable supporters included senators from states "with active grassroots campaigns to pass state laws on GE labeling, including both senators from Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, as well as Senator Bennett from Colorado, Senator Tester from Montana ..., [and] Senator Heinrich from New Mexico ..." (New York and Nevada also have active GMO labeling campaigns).
<snip>
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... eventual mandatory labeling at the NATIONAL level. The opposition is probably not so much to 'voluntary labeling' but that each state has the ability to request/enforce it.
Which means some states like Texas will never in a million years pass something asking GMO's to do shit, while other states will.
I think she's got a bigger end-game in mind, although I would like the states that still encourage voluntary labeling to be able to do so.
Just my .02
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Warren is demanding that manditory labeling is required not voluntary.
You've mixed up "manditory" (sic) and "voluntary" - Warren & Udall are both
*against* mandatory labelling of GMOs.
From the OP:
>> If the FDA heeds Senators Warren and Udall, the agency could use the voluntary guidance
>> to preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. Currently, states have the right
>> to enact GMO labeling laws precisely because the FDA has not formally ruled on GMO labeling.
>> Once it does, state laws could be overturned.
>> The FDAs guidance on voluntary GMO labeling also could be used to put an end to
>> existing, legitimate voluntary non-GMO labeling efforts.
>> By allowing the FDA, which has previously (and controversially) ruled that GMO and
>> non-GMO foods are substantially equivalent, the FDA could rule against non-GMO
>> or GMO-free labels on the basis that they mislead consumers by implying that theres
>> a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.
>> Senators Warren and Udall both have so far failed to support federal legislation
>> that would have required mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs.
>> Both also voted against an amendment to the farm bill that would have protected
>> states rights to label GMOs.
inch4progress
(270 posts)but whole foods(produce,raw meat, nothing processed or packaged) anymore.
Get so sick and tired of hearing how Gmo's cause cancer, then the Industry comes out and says they don't.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to trust an industry that believes it is in our best interest to hide information from us.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)inch4progress
(270 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)We'll just have to assume that anything that doesn't say it doesn't (like my non-irradiated garlic) is GMO and not safe to eat.
The insanity level is rising...who thought we'd get to this point where it's not safe to eat almost anything? Nuke or oil soaked seafood, frackwater livestock or produce, drifting GMO pollen...
cprise
(8,445 posts)Therefore, if there's no labeling of the GMOs I can stick with organic food whenever possible.
Trader Joe's has organic corn in the freezer section now at a good price.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Be VERY careful and watch for changes.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)How would the FDA's grace help ?
Manditory(state/fed) labeling or non GMO use just like other countries thank you
TPP coming up means even more you really really want to know also the origin of food products used in items
gmo or not IMO
Archae
(46,314 posts)I was just at the grocery store today, and the organic foods were anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 more expensive than other food.
I saw a half-gallon of organic milk, $4.50.
A full gallon of "normal" milk was less than $3.
icymist
(15,888 posts)eom
No difference.
I think some companies are labeling their stuff "organic" as a marketing tool.
icymist
(15,888 posts)I find no 'scam' at all in the taste.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)And you'll understand why it can cost more to produce. Then factor in the fact that out of the billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies given each year, none of it goes to organic producers
About the only scam being perpetrated is the one by the factory food system
Archae
(46,314 posts)Factory farms can label their produce "organic," and charge 2 or 3 times what "normal" farms do.
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)Of organic farms are small family farms who receive very little support from the government yet have to suffer being disparaged by people who know nothing about organic farming
kentauros
(29,414 posts)in order to accuse it of being a "scam": Improved soil health and increased topsoil.
In case you have never researched it (and would guess not, since you and others here that are "against" organic foods), more topsoil is a huge carbon sink, something we desperately need these days. Organic farming adds to the topsoil instead of only taking away from it, like "conventional" farming.
Archae
(46,314 posts)Like cow or human shit?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)non-organically-raised animal manure. Humanure doesn't have to be used at all, either. It's best if it isn't, due to all the chemicals people put into (and out of) their bodies, not to mention all the garbage people flush down their toilets.
So again, are you ignoring the fact that organic farming improves topsoil health, or are you just trying to be obtuse and argumentative for the sake of creating an online fight?
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)And that's usually the case for anyone that quotes skepdic
Zorra
(27,670 posts)have an understanding of organic farming. Tilth.
Producing food that is not contaminated by poisons almost always takes more time, money, knowledge, and care than simply throwing chemical fertilizer on the ground, and then repeatedly spraying the growing plants with poisonous insecticides and herbicides.
Most organic farmers put a lot of care, love, and concern into making the food they produce the safest, tastiest, and healthiest product possible.
For fertilizer, I used organic compost that I made from all kinds of good things for the earth, including earthworm castings, and rabbit and chicken manure from our own critters. I used natural substances such as wood ash, phosphate rock, sulfur soil, fish emulsion, and seaweed. I planted beans with corn because beans fix nitrogen and corn uses a lot of nitrogen. I rotated my crops to ensure the least amount of soil depletion, and grew alfalfa and then tilled it under on ground I wasn't using to fix nitrogen and add oranic material to the soil for spring planting. For pesticides I used organic substances such as bacillus thuringensis, and companion plants with flowers like marigolds and chrysanthemums, and hand picking. I got rid of weeds the old fashioned way ~ I mulched the fields, and pulled any weeds that popped up by hand.
It is so much more complicated, takes so much more skill and knowledge, and so much more labor intensive, to grow organic food than it does to farm with chemicals.
Most of the time when people buy organic food, they are not only buying food, but love as well. If organic food costs more, there is a common sense reason behind the higher price. It simply almost always costs more to produce it.
Now I have to get back to making my Hatch green chili sauce.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)yes, some is very expensive and I can't afford all organic either. Potatos, apples, onions, salad, milk, eggs & delicious goat butter (omg so good try it!) something I use a lot of..always organic.
The delicious taste is so worth it and goat butter is super for baking & cooking.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)icymist
(15,888 posts)If you can't regulate labeling at the federal level, then get out of the way for the states to decide!
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)With that they admit that it is about selling stuff that they know the people don't want. Lucky for them the gov is their employee, not ours, so they're winning.