State
Sen. Noreen Evans proposes labeling GMO foods in state
·
Peter Breyfogle feeds his daughter, Katherine, 1, an organic
package of pureed fruit and grains as Abraham Schroeder, left, feeds his son,
Nathaniel, 8 months, a jar of organic pureed peas during lunch at Five Guys on
Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 in Petaluma. (BETH SCHLANKER / The Press Democrat)
State Sen.
Noreen Evans plans to introduce legislation Friday that would require all foods
containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled in California, a move
sure to reignite a contentious and costly battle that the state's voters last
weighed in on in 2012.
The Santa
Rosa Democrat says genetically modified organisms have been linked to health
problems ranging from allergies to cancer, and that babies, in particular, are
at risk of getting sick, in part because their immune systems are not fully
developed. “For parents,
it's important that they not have to rely on the food industry before deciding
what they feed their children,” Evans said Thursday. “Parents should be able to
make their own choices.”
Evans
originally was planning to target only baby foods. But later Thursday, her
staff announced that her bill has been broadened to require GMO labeling for
all foods used for “human consumption” in California. That more closely mirrors
Proposition 37, which voters rejected in 2012. The senator's staff said about 85
percent of all foods on store shelves in California contain genetically
modified organisms. Evans did not
respond to a request seeking comment on the changes made to the proposed
legislation. Teala Schaff, her spokeswoman, said the changes were made at the
request of the California State Grange, which pushed for the original bill.
“It's still a
consumer choice bill. She's always been a strong consumer choice advocate,”
Schaff said. Mike Greene,
director of legislative affairs for the California State Grange, on Thursday
attributed the last-minute changes to a “lack of communication between us and
the senator's office.”
The grange
has about 10,000 members in about 45 California counties. Greene said the
organization passed a resolution at its annual meeting in October calling for
GMO labeling on baby foods. He said in November, a coalition of 17 groups,
including the Grange, Pesticide Action Network and Organic Consumers
Association, amended that stance to call for such labeling on all foods sold
for human consumption in California. He said the
group had four meetings with the senator's staff but that “they didn't
understand we were no longer talking about baby foods. We were talking about
all foods.”
That raises
the stakes on the proposed legislation considerably. Anti-GMO advocates have
been pushing for such labels for years, even though the federal government and
many scientists say the bio-technology behind genetically modified organisms is
safe.
Most grocers
are opposed, on the grounds that such labels are unnecessary, confusing to
consumers and likely to increase costs to produce new labels or ingredients to
meet California's new restrictions.
“Every
credible U.S. and international food safety authority that has studied GMO
crops has found that they are safe and that there are no health effects
associated with their use,” said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the Grocery
Manufacturers Association. He said the
nation's food safety and labeling laws “should not be set by political
campaigns, or state and local legislatures.”
Humans have
been altering the foods they consume for millennia. The current debate centers
on genetically modified plants that are engineered to resist insecticides and
herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and
increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in
the United States today have been genetically modified.
The Food and
Drug Administration does not require genetically modified foods to carry a
label, and attempts to change that at the federal level have failed. No states
currently require labeling of GMO foods, although Greene said bills are pending
in 26 states.
In 2005,
Sonoma County voters rejected a ballot measure that would have banned certain
GMO products for 10 years, ostensibly to allow more time for testing.
All of that
has not deterred organic food companies and some consumer groups from
continuing their push for labeling. Whole Foods Market is requiring all
products sold in its stores in the United States and Canada to carry labels
indicating whether they contain genetically modified ingredients by 2018.
Karen Hudson,
coordinator of the group Sonoma County Label GMOs, said people “really don't
know what the repercussions” of serving foods with genetically engineered
ingredients are. With respect to infants, she said it's important parents be
given the choice of knowing what goes into the products.
She said she
doesn't view it any different than disclosing whether foods contain gluten,
trans fats or known allergens. “All it is saying is it has GMO in the food,”
she said.
The issue is
whether such labeling should be mandatory.
Abraham
Schroeder of Petaluma said he doesn't believe it's completely necessary, even
though he's more likely to buy foods that specify the ingredients.
He and his
wife, Kati Schroeder, choose foods labeled organic or non-GMO for their
8-month-old son Nathaniel, who also gets breast milk.
“We've been
genetically selecting food for millennia. Everything we eat now is the result
of thousands of years of cross-breeding and modification,” Abraham Schroeder
said. “That being said, I like to know what's in my food.”
Another
Petaluma father, Peter Breyfogle, said he doesn't know whether “there's an
actual risk” tied to genetically modified organisms in food. Still, he and his
wife, Marian Hughes, are opting to feed their 13-month-old daughter, Katie,
foods that are labeled organic.
“Consumer
choice is important, and knowing what you're looking at when you make that
choice is great,” he said.
However, UC
Davis Professor Martina Newell-McGloughlin said consumers would interpret GMO
labels on foods as a warning that the products are unsafe, when she said there
is no evidence of that.
She said
since the introduction of modern bio-engineered crops in 1994, Americans have
consumed about “two trillion” meals containing the organisms without suffering
“one single documented incident of any adverse effect.”
“All food has
been genetically modified to one extent or the other over the last 1,000 years,
and especially, the last 100 years,” said Newell-McGloughlin, director of Life
and Health Sciences Research Initiatives and International Biotechnology
Program at UC Davis.
Critics of
Prop. 37, which was defeated by six percentage points, argued that it would be
a payday for lawyers suing to enforce violations.
Greene said
Evans' legislation would only allow people to collect attorney's fees, and no
damages.
He said her
bill also clarifies that food manufacturers — and not retailers — are
responsible for disclosing whether foods contain genetically modified
organisms. It also does not cover foods consumed by animals.
“People want
to know what's in their food, and that's about it,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment