SERALINI STUDY REPUBLISHED - CENSORS CONTINUE TO VILIFY IT

Controversial Seralini study linking GM to cancer in rats is republished

Paper on link between GM corn and cancer in lab rats is republished after journal withdrew it – but critics say it is still flawed

Tuesday 24 June 2014 07.18 EDT

Gilles-Eric Seralini, a professor at the University of Caen in Normandy, said rats fed NK603 corn and Roundup weedkiller developed liver and kidney disease and mammary tumours Photograph: Alamy

French scientists who in 2012 wrote a contested study linking pesticide-treated, genetically-modified corn with cancer in lab rats returned to the attack on Tuesday, republishing their work online.

Denying accusations of bad science, the team said the work, which was withdrawn by the journal which first printed it, had been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe, owned by Germany's Springer group.

The raw data has also been placed in the public domain for others to scrutinise, the researchers said.

"Censorship of research into the risks of a technology so intertwined with global food safety undermines the value and credibility of science," the team said in a statement.
The research kicked up a hornet's nest when it was first published in September 2012.
Its authors, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a professor at the University of Caen in Normandy, said rats fed NK603 corn and Roundup weedkiller developed liver and kidney disease and mammary tumours.

Many other scientists said at the time that the study was flawed. And commentators on Tuesday said nothing has changed through publishing it again.

NK603, made by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, has been engineered to be immune to the weedkiller Roundup. As a result, farmers can spray their fields to kill weeds without harming their crops.

The authors stood by their original research on Tuesday and lashed out at the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology for withdrawing it - a great humiliation in the scientific world.
"Roundup formulations and Roundup-tolerant GMOs should be considered as (hormonal) disruptors and their present assessments on health are drastically deficient," they wrote.
Open publication in the Springer journal provides a forum "so that science can reclaim its rights against the pressures of the industry seeking to suppress 'whistle-blowers'," they said.
In defence of their study, the scientists said it was the first to be carried out on lab rodents over their normal lifespan of two years as opposed to the usual 90 days.

They said the study was designed to test toxicity rather than causes of cancer.
Critics faulted the experimental method, saying the number of rats studied was too small and their diet was skewed when compared with their natural food intake.

They also attacked the choice of rat - so-called Sprague-Dawley rats, a standard choice for lab experiments but highly prone to developing cancers, particularly in old age.

In an initial reaction Tuesday, critics said their concerns have still not been answered.
"Republishing data that was faulty in the first place in study design and analysis does not provide redemption. Furthermore, it is now possible to publish almost anything in open access journals," said Tom Sanders, a professor of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London.

Source:  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/controversial-seralini-study-gm-cancer-rats-republished

PESTICIDES LINKED AGAIN TO AUTISM - ANOTHER STUDY

Study Links Pesticide Exposure in Pregnancy to Autism

June 23rd, 2014Reuters
by Kathryn Doyle

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – In a new study from California, children with an autism spectrum disorder were more likely to have mothers who lived close to fields treated with certain pesticides during pregnancy.

Proximity to agricultural pesticides in pregnancy was also linked to other types of developmental delay among children.

“Ours is the third study to specifically link autism spectrum disorders to pesticide exposure, whereas more papers have demonstrated links with developmental delay,” said lead author Janie F. Shelton, from the University of California, Davis.

There needs to be more research before scientists can say that pesticides cause autism, she told Reuters Health in an email. But pesticides all affect signaling between cells in the nervous system, she added, so a direct link is plausible.

California is one of only a few states in the U.S. where agricultural pesticide use is rigorously reported and mapped. For the new study, the researchers used those maps to track exposures during pregnancy for the mothers of 970 children.

The children included 486 with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 168 with a developmental delay and 316 with typical development.

Developmental delay, in which children take extra time to reach communication, social or motor skills milestones, affects about four percent of U.S. kids, the authors write. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that one in 68 children has an ASD, also marked by deficits in social interaction and language.

In the new study, about a third of mothers had lived within a mile of fields treated with pesticides, most commonly organophosphates.

Children of mothers exposed to organophosphates were 60 percent more likely to have an ASD than children of non-exposed mothers, the authors report in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Autism risk was also increased with exposure to so-called pyrethroid insecticides, as was the risk for developmental delay. Carbamate pesticides were linked to developmental delay but not ASDs.

For some pesticides, exposure seemed to be most important just before conception and in the third trimester, but for others it didn’t seem to matter when during pregnancy women were exposed.

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan speculated that the pesticides probably drifted from crops through the air, and that’s how pregnant women were exposed. The new study did not measure airborne pesticide levels, however.

Landrigan directs the Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and was not involved in the new study.

“We already knew from animal studies as well as from epidemiologic studies of women and children that prenatal exposure (to pesticides) is associated with lower IQ,” Landrigan told Reuters Health. “This study builds on that, uses the population of a whole state, looks at multiple different pesticides and finds a pattern of wide association between pesticide exposure and developmental disability.”

What’s more, this study almost certainly underestimates the true strength of the association between pesticides and neurological problems, he said, since it did not precisely measure each individual woman’s exposure.

Pesticide registries like the one in California and another in New York are rare, but are critical to public health efforts in this area, Landrigan said. Concerned parents could advocate for registries like them in their own states, he added.

“One lesson or message for parents is to minimize or eliminate use of pesticides in their own homes,” Landrigan said.

In the months before and during pregnancy, it would make sense to avoid using pesticides in the home or on the lawn, he said.

For city-dwelling families, instead of spraying for cockroaches every month, integrated pest management is a better choice. That approach makes chemical pesticides the last resort – first steps are to seal up cracks and crevices in the home, clean up food residue and try relatively non-toxic options, like roach motels.

“If there’s one thing that parents can control it’s what comes into their home,” he said.

“It would be a great first step to stop using organophosphates and pyrethroids inside the home,” Shelton agreed.

Source:  http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/06/study-links-pesticide-exposure-pregnancy-autism/

FORCE-FEEDING EU GE FOOD AND AG DESPITE EXISTING LAWS

U.S. Calls on Europe to Ease Limits on Gene-Altered Food

By JAMES KANTERJUNE 17, 2014

BRUSSELS — The top American agriculture official on Tuesday called on the European Union to do more to ease restrictions on gene-altered food and feed crops if it hoped to reach a trans-Atlantic trade pact.Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

“There can’t be a trade agreement without a serious and significant commitment to agriculture,” the official, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, told reporters on Tuesday, a day after an informal meeting with European farm ministers. European consumers “ought to have a choice” whether to use biotech foods, he said.

Mr. Vilsack has a tough case to make, though. There continues to be deep resistance to bioengineered agricultural products in the European Union — or to easing many other agricultural trade protections, for that matter. The fight over food, in fact, is a big impediment to progress in talks that are already moving more slowly than officials on both sides had wanted when President Obama announced them last year.

Negotiators are trying to reach a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, an agreement that goes far beyond cutting import duties by creating a more uniform market and by synchronizing regulations for products like automobiles and medicines. But after five rounds of meetings, the negotiators are at odds in important areas, including how to lower tariffs, whether to include financial services in any deal, and how to create freer trade in food and farming.

The deal is also drawing opposition from groups on both sides of the Atlantic, concerned it will lower environmental standards and weaken consumer protections.

The United States has long insisted that there is no scientific evidence of safety risks from using foods and feeds whose genetic makeup have been altered through bioengineering — whether to make them more resistant to pests and drought or to fine-tune their content. But many Europeans are more cautious, and some deride the products as “Frankenfoods” that must remain heavily restricted on farms and in the food chain. European shops tend to carry few foods with gene-altered ingredients because of skepticism among consumers.

Cultivation in Europe is also almost nonexistent. A Monsanto corn variety approved in 1998 is the only gene-altered crop grown in the bloc. Grown mainly in Spain, the variety represented only 1.4 percent of European Union corn production in 2012.

European Union officials have proposed ways of encouraging more cultivation of such crops. One idea is to give countries that are steadfastly opposed to biotech crops, like Austria, broader scope to ban them from their territory. Those countries would, in turn, then ease their opposition to allowing the crops on a broader European basis. But whether those rules, which still must be approved by the European Parliament, would promote more cultivation is an open question.

As to imports, there is already a significant level of trans-Atlantic trade — but not as much as the United States would like. The European Union has authorized import of 58 gene-altered varieties for food and feed from the rest of the world, including the United States. But new approvals often get stuck for years in complex decision-making processes, even after being given a green light by the European Food Safety Authority, a European Union agency.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story


“Our view is that the regulatory process should be synchronized,” said Mr. Vilsack. Approvals take about 18 months in the United States compared with an average of about 45 months in the European Union, American officials said.

Europe should also reconsider requirements to label genetically modified foods, said Mr. Vilsack, who added that consumers could use smartphones to scan packaging to check the contents. European ministers “didn’t say that’s a ridiculous idea,” said Mr. Vilsack.

Dacian Ciolos, the European Union’s agriculture minister, said at a news conference on Monday evening that other “crucial issues” discussed with Mr. Vilsack included European demands on American producers to curb use of so-called geographical indications like Feta, meant to protect products like the Greek cheese of the same name.

Most ministers told Mr. Vilsack that the “European Union doesn’t see how any kind of agreement can be struck without geographical indications being part and parcel of that agreement,” Mr. Ciolos said.

On Tuesday during his meeting with reporters, Mr. Vilsack asked, “Where is Feta?” He said it was not even a place in Greece, but simply a manufacturing process. “If only Greeks can use the term Feta, which has been used for a long period of time by a lot of people, and you expand that to all the other cheeses that are at issue here,” he said, “that’s a problem.”

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/international/us-calls-on-europe-to-ease-limits-on-gene-altered-food.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld&_r=1

COLICCHIO CHEF-JUDGE: NY, PASS A3525-S383, LABEL GE FOOD LIKE MOST OF THE PLANET DOES!

Tell New Yorkers what’s in their food 

Celebrity chef Tom Colicchio urges the state to embrace GMO labeling

BY Tom Colicchio

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, June 13, 2014, 6:36 PM

Natalie Behring/Bloomberg GMO or not?

A consumer goes to the produce aisle in the supermarket and sees five displays of strawberries. The first is labeled “USDA Organic,” the second “GMO-free,” the third “All Natural,” the fourth “Locally Grown,” and the fifth has no label. Which of the strawberries is genetically modified?
Answer: None. There are no GMO strawberries being commercially grown or sold in the U.S. (or anywhere else) — but most people don’t know this. Nor do they know that USDA organic standards prohibit the use of GMO seeds. Or that in some cases, “GMO-free” is being used as a marketing ploy on products that never contained GMOs under any circumstances.
Or that “All Natural” is the most meaningless term on a package today — appearing on foods with ingredients that only a biochemist can pronounce. Or that “Locally Grown” says nothing about the merits of a food other than that it was grown nearby.
All this explains the crippling confusion that now confronts too many food consumers every time they enter the grocery store. We can do better — and when it comes to the powerful technology behind genetically modified foods, we must.
Advances in agricultural biotechnology have led to a dramatic and rapid expansion in the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops on American farmland. Approximately 90% of the corn, soybean, alfalfa, sugar beets and cotton being grown on U.S. farm acres are now GMO varieties.
Virtually all GMO crops on the market today have been engineered to be pest-resistant (by inserting bacteria DNA that turns the plant into a pesticide factory), herbicide-tolerant (by inserting bacteria DNA that makes them able to survive repeated sprayings with toxic weed-killers such as Roundup) or both.
This rapid adoption of GMO agriculture has outpaced the scientific community’s understanding of its impacts on human health and the environment, and has left the public in the dark. We’re in the dark because the chemical companies that make the seeds and the food companies that use GMOs have fought hard against any labeling regulations.
You can debate the ethics of tinkering with the DNA of the plants and animals we eat — but it’s beyond debate that consumers have the right to know what they’re buying for the family table.
And please, ignore those industry arguments that GMOs are needed to feed the hungry and improve nutritional content. Those crops generally do not yet exist. Instead, the GMO crops on the market today have been developed to lock farmers into a annual cycle of buying these patented seeds and the chemicals needed to grow them — a very profitable business model indeed.
So, who’s afraid of disclosure? We live in a free market economy, don’t we? Consumers are supposed to make informed choices. But when they are denied access to relevant information, such as whether their food contains GMOs, that free market economy is at best theoretical, and at worst a joke.
More than half the world’s population lives in countries that already have GMO food-labeling laws, including the EU, Japan, China, Russia and Japan. A 2013 New York Times poll showed 93% of Americans want GMO foods labeled.
Time and experience has shown us we can’t wait for the FDA or Congress to address this at the federal level. It’s up to state governments to give people this right. Vermont recently passed a labeling law set to go into effect in July 2016. Connecticut and Maine each passed laws last year that will go into effect if certain conditions are met. Oregon and Colorado will have GMO labeling on the ballot in the upcoming election.
New York’s legislation has been steadily moving through committees in the Assembly this year. It could soon come up for a floor vote if Speaker Sheldon Silver and fellow Democrats decide to take a stand against undue corporate influence and do what’s right for New Yorkers. We all have the right to know what’s in our food. Let’s put that in writing.
Colicchio, head judge of “Top Chef” on Bravo, is a founding board member of the national nonprofit advocacy organization, Food Policy Action.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/new-yorkers-food-article-1.1829261#ixzz34djrN9Ev

BIG FOOD-AG BUYING LEGISLATORS -LIST: MILLIONS TO STOP USA GE FOOD LABELS THAT 64 NATIONS HAVE

Pesticide and GMO Companies Spend Big in Hawai'i

Posted by Rebekah Wilce on June 11, 2014

Hawai'i has become "ground zero" in the controversy over genetically modified (GMO) crops and pesticides. With the seed crop industry (including conventional as well as GMO crops) reaping $146.3 million a year in sales resulting from its activities in Hawai'i, the out-of-state pesticide and GMO firms Syngenta, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow Chemical, BASF, and Bayer CropScience have brought substantial sums of corporate cash into the state's relatively small political arena.

Chemical Conglomerates Retaliate Against Local Democratic Control

These "Big 6" pesticide and GMO firms are active on the islands in a big way, making use of the three to four annual growing seasons to develop new GMO seeds more quickly. The development of new GMOs by these pesticide and seed conglomerates goes hand-in-hand with heavy pesticide use in some of the islands' experimental crop fields, new data show.
Kaua'i County -- consisting primarily of the island of Kaua'i, known as Hawai'i's "Garden Isle" and home to Waimea Canyon State Park -- passed a law in November 2013 that requires disclosure of pesticide use and GMO crops sewn by growers and created buffer zones around schools, parks, medical facilities, and private residences. The law is set to go into effect in August 2014.
Hawai'i County banned GMOs altogether in November 2013, and a Maui County initiative to ban GMOs recently obtained enough citizen signatures to be placed on the November 2014 ballot.
Since experiencing these setbacks, the big agricultural firms have retaliated in a big way.
Syngenta, DuPont Pioneer, Agrigenetics (doing business as Dow AgroSciences), and BASF have sued Kaua'i to block its law.
Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont Pioneer, and several associated trade groups spent over $50,000 lobbying the state legislature from January through April 2014, as legislators considered bills to override the county laws, according to data from the Hawaii State Ethics Commission (as reported through June 6, 2014) analyzed by the Center for Media and Democracy/Progressive Inc. (CMD).
Of these, the Hawai'i Crop Improvement Association (whose members include Dow AgroScience, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Syngenta, and BASF) had the highest expenditures at $10,800; the powerful national trade association the American Chemistry Council (whose members include BASF, Bayer, Dow, and DuPont) and Syngenta each spent $10,000; and Monsanto spent $8,982.

Big Ag Money Moves to the Ballot

Islanders will vote in a primary election for state legislators, governor, and U.S. Congressmembers August 9. Voters will also make initial choices between candidates for mayor and county council seats on Kaua'i and Maui as well as county council seats on Hawai'i.
The big agricultural corporations Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, and Bayer, associated trade groups, and their lobbyists and employees contributed over $700,000 to state and county candidates from November 2006 through December 2013, according to a new CMD analysis of Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission data. Initial campaign finance reports for what is shaping up to be an expensive political battle this year are not yet released.
Monsanto was the top donor, with its PAC contributing $115,500.
Lobbyists -- several of whom have multiple clients besides big ag. interests -- and their spouses contributed over $550,000.
Top recipients of this special interest largesse include:

• Governor Neil Abercrombie, a well-known and popular liberal Democrat, who received over $60,000;
• Sen. Clayton Hee (D-23), who passed GMO labeling out of committee as chair, but who also sponsored SB 3058 -- one of the bills referred to as Hawai'i's "Monsanto Protection Act" -- and who received $20,850;
• former Honolulu Mayor and Independent gubernatorial candidate Mufi Hannemann, who received over $60,000;
• Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, who received over $19,000; Sen. Rosalyn Baker (D-6), who received over $18,000;
• Honolulu City Councilman J. Ikaika Anderson, who received over $17,000;
• Rep. Kyle Yamashita (D-12), who received over $17,000;
• Sen. Clarence Nishihara (D-17), who received $16,893;
• Sen. Josh Green (D-3), who received $16,892; and
• Sen. Sen. Michelle Kidani (D-18), who received over $15,000.

Contributing lobbyists include:

• John H. Radcliffe of Capitol Consultants of Hawaii, a "super lobbyist" for the American Chemistry Council and Monsanto, among other clients, who with his wife and his other lobbying firm Radcliffe and Associates contributed $243,718;
• George A. "Red" Morris of Capitol Consultants of Hawaii, who lobbies for the American Chemistry Council, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Monsanto, among other clients, and with his wife contributed $237,492;
• Richard Brian Tsujimura of Imanaka Kudo & Fujimoto, who lobbies for the national trade association Biotechnology Industry Organization, among other clients, and contributed $15,350;
• Alicia Maluafiti of Lo'ihi Communications, who lobbies for the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and CropLife America, among other clients, and with her late husband contributed $18,300; and
• Frederick Perlak, who lobbies for Monsanto and with his wife contributed $18,300.

Big Ag Political Funders Have Ties to ALEC

Of the "Big 6" chemical and seed companies and their trade associations lobbying and/or contributing to political candidates in Hawai'i, Bayer, Dow, CropLife America (a pesticide and agricultural chemical trade association), and the American Chemistry Council have ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
ALEC approved a "model" bill in 2013 for states to override the ability of counties and cities to democratically determine how they will regulate GMOs at the local and regional level, as CMD has reported.
Bayer was listed as the ALEC corporate co-chair of the states of Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas as of 2011; has sponsored several ALEC meetings; has been listed as a member of the Civil Justice and Health and Human Services task forces; and was a member of ALEC's Private Enterprise Board through 2012.
Dow Chemical has been listed as a member of ALEC's Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force and has sponsored at least one ALEC meeting.
CropLife America has been listed as a member of ALEC's Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force and co-chaired its "Agriculture Subcommittee." This subcommittee adopted Oregon's bill overriding local control over GMO regulation as an official "model" bill in 2013 while CropLife's Jeff Case was its co-chair, as CMD has reported.
The American Chemistry Council has also been listed as a member of ALEC's Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force and has sponsored at least one ALEC meeting.

Chemical Company Tactics Inspire More "Democracy in Action"

Barbara Polk, Chair of Common Cause Hawaii -- a state branch of the non-partisan, grassroots organization that strives for open, honest, and accountable government -- told CMD, "The influx of big money and threat of unlimited 'independent expenditures' have resulted in politicians statewide increasingly placing the interests of corporations over the interests of citizens. Politicians are forced to consider the likelihood of facing well-funded opposition and attack ads in the next election if they don't toe the corporate line."
Ashley Lukens, Program Director of the Hawaii Center for Food Safety -- a state office of the environmental advocacy organization that opposes the use of GMOs and harmful pesticides -- adds, "The impact of this corporate cash on local politics is not just that representatives are pressured to vote based on donations to their campaigns. Rather this cash has been strategically spent to create a mirage of confusion and disagreement around very mainstream issues like pesticide disclosure and GMO labeling."
According to a national poll by Consumer Reports released this week, 92 percent of U.S. consumers think that GMO food should be labeled before it is sold and meet long-term safety standards set by the government.
"Standing up for something as conservative as transparency around chemical use in Hawa'ii is treated as though it is radical," Lukens continued. "This radicalizing of dissent simply serves to silence the majority of the public and keep them from participating publicly in the civic process."
But despite this anti-democratic pressure, Kaua'i County Councilmember and former state legislator Gary Hooser (D), who co-authored the county's 2013 ordinance requiring disclosure of GMOs planted and pesticides used as well as buffer zones, calls Kaua'i "ground zero" not just for the testing of GMO crops, but also for "democracy in action."
Hooser, who is up for reelection himself this year, told CMD, "A lot of people never involved in politics, activism, or advocacy are getting involved because the big money interests are so in your face. There are candidates running on our side who never thought they’d be running, inspired by the companies' poisoning of our community and control of our government."

---

This article is part of "What The Fork!?! Corporations and Democracy," a collaborative media effort investigating corporate control of our democracy and our dinner plates. The articles and radio segments are the combined work of Making Contact, The Progressive, the Center for Media and Democracy (publisher of ALECexposed.org), and Food Democracy Now, along with reporting from Earth Island Journal, Grist, and Cascadia Times. Reporting has been made possible in part by a generous grant from the Voqal Fund. Read stories and more at wtfcorporations.com, and follow #wtfcorps and #BigAg on Twitter and Facebook.
The Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice have intervened in the federal case on behalf of the county. Free Speech For People filed an amicus brief in support of the county, and Progressive Inc. President Lisa Graves is on the group's legal advisory committee.
Candidate committees and non-candidate committees (PACs) aggregate contributions on different reporting cycles, and there are additional discrepancies between what contributions candidate committees report and what contributions non-candidate committees report. CMD has made every effort to control for these issues. In the case of Monsanto, some contributions are reported as being made by the non-candidate committee, and some by "other entity" -- these contributions are combined in the above total.

Source:  http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12506/pesticide-and-gmo-corporations-spend-big-hawaii

HIUGE SCORE - MAUI INITIATIVE GIVES PEOPLES' THUMBS DOWN TO GMOs

MAUI WOWEE!!! It's official like a referee with a whistle! The people of Maui gathered over 8,500 signatures to achieve Hawaii's first successful citizen initiative ever.  Come November, the issue of a GMO moratorium will be on the ballot.

You, the people of Hawaii have demonstrated that the force is strong here.

In 2013, the Hawaii's House of Representatives became the first legislative chamber in the nation to pass GMO labeling.  Then earlier this year, we stopped a bill that would have stripped each county's ability to regulate GMOs. Now, the grassroots community has made history in the Shaka Movement.  You should be very proud.

But the battle has only begun.  Like various west coast states have already seen in their labeling initiatives, chemical/biotech companies will likely throw huge money to defeat our citizen initative. This is why it will be important to continue to talk to your friends, family, and neighbors  to make this iniative successful.

You made this happen, but I'm here to help.  Help me continue fighting big biotech special interests by chipping in $10-$25 or whatever you can today.  Together, we will shape a cleaner, brighter, more sustainable future for Hawaii.

Mahalo again,

Rep. Kaniela Ing

WILL FDA, USDA, EPA AND OBAMA KEEP IGNORING 92% OF AMERICANS DEMANDING GMO LABELS?

Published on Monday, June 9, 2014 by Common Dreams

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Say: 'Just Label It!'

New Consumers Report poll finds that 92 percent of respondents want the government to require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Ninety-two percent of Americans want the government to require GE foods to be labeled, according to the results of a new survey. (Photo: Cedar Circle Farm & Education Center/ Creative Commons)An overwhelming majority of Americans think that genetically engineered (GE) foods should be labeled before they are sold, according to a new Consumer Reports poll released on Monday. 
The nationally-representative phone survey found that 92 percent of respondents think that GE foods, or those made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), should be labeled accordingly. Further, 92 percent also think that the government should legally require the labeling of GE salmon—which may soon be approved and sold in stores—despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires neither labeling nor pre-market safety assessments of GE food.
The survey, taken in April 2014, assessed the importance of various factors that consumers weigh when purchasing food. According to the results, 72 percent said it was important or very important to avoid genetically engineered ingredients when making purchases.
“This poll underscores that, across the country, consumers want labeling of GE food, including GE salmon, and consider safety standards set by the government of such food imperative," said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union.
Growing public opposition to GE foods comes as numerous states have begun to surpass the FDA by passing their own labeling legislation.
Last month, Vermont became the first state to require the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients. Similar legislation, which included "trigger clauses" that require a certain number of other states to also enact similar laws, passed in both Connecticut and Maine. Lawmakers in Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado, and New York are also weighing labeling proposals.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.