CONGRESS THROWS 90% OF THEIR VOTERS UNDER THE BIG FOOD-BIG AG #GMO MEGABUS

Published on Thursday, July 14, 2016 by Common Dreams

In Victory for Food and Biotech Industries, Congress Passes DARK Act 2.0

"We urge President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what they are eating by rejecting this bill."

by

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

   

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

GMO labeling proponents hold a sign during a march in San Francisco in 2013. (Photo: Steve Rhodes/flickr/cc)

President Barack Obama is poised to sign the so-called DARK Act, a GMO labeling bill critics say notches a win for the food and biotech industries but will still leave consumers in the dark about whether or not their food contains genetically modified ingredients.

After the legislation easily passed in the U.S. House on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal described it as "a victory for food companies," noting that it "will supersede tougher measures passed by one state [Vermont] and considered in others."

As The Hill reports:

The bill, which passed by a 306 to 117 vote, directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a national labeling standard that allows food producers to choose how they want to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients.

Under the legislation, manufacturers will be able to use text, symbols or a QR code that consumers must scan with a smartphone to relay the information.

As such, BloombergPolitics reports,

Under the legislation, which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.

A roll call of the vote is here.

It passed the Senate last week, and now heads to President Obama, who'sindicated he will sign it —against the wishes of many food transparency advocacy groups.

Gary Ruskin, co-director of pro-labeling group U.S. Right to Know, urged Obama to veto the legislation, saying in a press statement that it "is a sweetheart deal for the food and agrichemical industries, who want to keep consumers guessing about the contents of their food."

Similarly criticizing the legislation on Thursday was Ronnie Cummins, international director of Organic Consumers Association, who said in a statement, "Congress trampled on consumer and states' rights, choosing instead to serve the interests of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association."

"This bill was written bought and paid for by corporations who clearly have something to hide," he continued. "Replacing clear, on-package labels with a system that is convoluted, inconvenient, and discriminates against the elderly, the poor and anyone without a smartphone or internet access is inexcusable, especially when consumers in 64 other countries have the right to that same information."

There's also the fact that the majority of Americans support labeling of GMOs, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, says.

She added, "If this bill becomes law, the food and biotech industries win what are essentially voluntary requirements. This so-called 'compromise' does not mandate recalls, penalties or fines for noncompliance, and many loopholes in the bill will likely leave many GMO ingredients exempt from any labeling requirements. The bill gives companies the option to use discriminatory and cumbersome QR codes that require a smartphone to access basic information about the food on store shelves."

"We urge President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what they are eating by rejecting this bill. This is his final chance to get it right when it comes to food policies that protect people over corporations. He can do just that by vetoing the DARK Act," Hauter said.

Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson added his voice to the chorus of opposition by sending Obama a letter (pdf) on Thursday urging him to veto the measure.

Echoing some of Cummins and Hauter's concerns, Jackson writes that the "law's principal thrust is to rely on QR codes which shoppers will scan to gain product information relative to GMOs. However, 100,000,000 Americans, most of them poor, people of color and elderly either do not own a smart phone or an iPhone to scan the QR code or live in an area of poor internet connectivity."

"As someone who, like yourself, has traversed the rocky upward path to social and economic justice on behalf of those at the other side of society's great divides, racial, social and economic," he added, "I want to call to your attention serious inequities on GMO labeling legislation coming soon to your desk."

Carey Gillam, journalist and research director for U.S. Right to Know,reported last month on how the legislation has "blown wide open deep divisions running through the U.S. organic industry." 

The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) announcedWednesday that it withdrew its membership from the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), decrying the "duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers" when OTA signed off on the bill, despite the fact

that it "would immediately preempt existing strong state GMO labeling laws that are widely supported by the organic community and ninety percent of consumers."

CONGRESS THROWS 90% OF THEIR VOTERS UNDER THE BIG FOOD-BIG AG #GMO MEGABUS

Published on Thursday, July 14, 2016 by Common Dreams

In Victory for Food and Biotech Industries, Congress Passes DARK Act 2.0

"We urge President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what they are eating by rejecting this bill."

by

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

   

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

GMO labeling proponents hold a sign during a march in San Francisco in 2013. (Photo: Steve Rhodes/flickr/cc)

President Barack Obama is poised to sign the so-called DARK Act, a GMO labeling bill critics say notches a win for the food and biotech industries but will still leave consumers in the dark about whether or not their food contains genetically modified ingredients.

After the legislation easily passed in the U.S. House on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal described it as "a victory for food companies," noting that it "will supersede tougher measures passed by one state [Vermont] and considered in others."

As The Hill reports:

The bill, which passed by a 306 to 117 vote, directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a national labeling standard that allows food producers to choose how they want to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients.

Under the legislation, manufacturers will be able to use text, symbols or a QR code that consumers must scan with a smartphone to relay the information.

As such, BloombergPolitics reports,

Under the legislation, which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.

A roll call of the vote is here.

It passed the Senate last week, and now heads to President Obama, who'sindicated he will sign it —against the wishes of many food transparency advocacy groups.

Gary Ruskin, co-director of pro-labeling group U.S. Right to Know, urged Obama to veto the legislation, saying in a press statement that it "is a sweetheart deal for the food and agrichemical industries, who want to keep consumers guessing about the contents of their food."

Similarly criticizing the legislation on Thursday was Ronnie Cummins, international director of Organic Consumers Association, who said in a statement, "Congress trampled on consumer and states' rights, choosing instead to serve the interests of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association."

"This bill was written bought and paid for by corporations who clearly have something to hide," he continued. "Replacing clear, on-package labels with a system that is convoluted, inconvenient, and discriminates against the elderly, the poor and anyone without a smartphone or internet access is inexcusable, especially when consumers in 64 other countries have the right to that same information."

There's also the fact that the majority of Americans support labeling of GMOs, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, says.

She added, "If this bill becomes law, the food and biotech industries win what are essentially voluntary requirements. This so-called 'compromise' does not mandate recalls, penalties or fines for noncompliance, and many loopholes in the bill will likely leave many GMO ingredients exempt from any labeling requirements. The bill gives companies the option to use discriminatory and cumbersome QR codes that require a smartphone to access basic information about the food on store shelves."

"We urge President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what they are eating by rejecting this bill. This is his final chance to get it right when it comes to food policies that protect people over corporations. He can do just that by vetoing the DARK Act," Hauter said.

Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson added his voice to the chorus of opposition by sending Obama a letter (pdf) on Thursday urging him to veto the measure.

Echoing some of Cummins and Hauter's concerns, Jackson writes that the "law's principal thrust is to rely on QR codes which shoppers will scan to gain product information relative to GMOs. However, 100,000,000 Americans, most of them poor, people of color and elderly either do not own a smart phone or an iPhone to scan the QR code or live in an area of poor internet connectivity."

"As someone who, like yourself, has traversed the rocky upward path to social and economic justice on behalf of those at the other side of society's great divides, racial, social and economic," he added, "I want to call to your attention serious inequities on GMO labeling legislation coming soon to your desk."

Carey Gillam, journalist and research director for U.S. Right to Know,reported last month on how the legislation has "blown wide open deep divisions running through the U.S. organic industry." 

The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) announcedWednesday that it withdrew its membership from the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), decrying the "duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers" when OTA signed off on the bill, despite the fact

that it "would immediately preempt existing strong state GMO labeling laws that are widely supported by the organic community and ninety percent of consumers."

CONSUMER-REJECTED NON-LABELING #GMO LABEL BILL S.764 MOVES SOON TO POTUS

Obama Ready to Sign Food-Label Bill Consumer Groups Find Suspect

The White House plans to support legislation creating a national labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified organisms even though consumer groups criticize the bill for allowing information to live behind special codes, and for allowing an exemption for meat and eggs.

“While there is broad consensus that foods from genetically engineered crops are safe, we appreciate the bipartisan effort to address consumers’ interest in knowing more about their food, including whether it includes ingredients from genetically engineered crops,” White House spokeswoman Katie Hill said in an e-mail."We look forward to tracking its progress in the House and anticipate the President would sign it in its current form.” 

The Senate-passed labeling bill, S. 764, is to be taken up in the House this week. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Republican Mike Conaway of Texas , has signaled his approval, making it more likely the proposal will pass the chamber and end up on Obama’s desk. 

Under the legislation, which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co. , Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.

The law doesn’t mandate printing “GMO” on the exterior, instead offering three options for disclosure: text on the packaging, a symbol, or an electronic link that would direct consumers to a website for more information.

Beef, pork, poultry and eggs wouldn’t be subject to labeling, though the deal would cover many other grocery staples including corn flakes and cooking oil. The bill also would tightly define genetic engineering in ways the biotech industry wanted, not including new techniques such as gene editing.

State-imposed labeling requirements would be banned and producers that have secured a “certified organic” designation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be allowed to clearly display a “non-GMO” label on their products.

Vermont Consequence

The push for a nationwide standard is in response to a law that took effect in Vermont on July 1 requiring disclosure of GMO ingredients on food labels. That rule, plus other initiatives in Maine, Connecticut and other states, has food companies and commodity-growers concerned about a patchwork of state laws that would impede commerce, expose them to fines, needlessly scare consumers about safe products and force expensive reformulations of food products to become GMO-free.

“There is too much at stake in the marketplace to let the consequences of the Vermont law linger any longer,” said Richard Wilkins, a Delaware soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, in a statement after the Senate vote.

Coca-Cola Co., the world’s largest soft-drink company, said June 28 it expects to pull some of its beverages from Vermont stores to avoid penalties. General Mills Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Kellogg Co., Conagra Foods Inc. and Mars Inc. have all developed new labels to comply with Vermont, which has defended its law in courts and in Congress, where Vermont Senator Bernie Sandersbriefly threatened to hold up the Senate’s vote on the measure.

The implementation of the law has caused confusion and concern among Vermont retailers and food distributors, said Erin Sigrist, president-elect of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association. And as the state adopts the new rules, there have been worries about shortages of staple items, including things like baby formula.

Food companies also find themselves navigating uncharted waters. Dannon, the leading seller of yogurt in the U.S., sent some Vermont retailers GMO labels and asked for their help applying the stickers "in some situations due to the logistics of distribution," according to the company. Dannon said in April that it would label all of its products in the U.S. for GMOs by December 2017.

But pre-empting Vermont with an industry-friendly law will thwart the goal of helping consumers know where their food comes from, said Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group.

“This bill is a travesty, an undemocratic and discriminatory bill which preempts state laws, while offering no meaningful labeling for GMOs,” said Perls.

Keep up with the race of a lifetime. 

Get our politics newsletter daily. 

Under the legislation, the USDA has two years to write rules, which will take time because of complexity within food production. For example, when a majority of a product is made with meat, no GMO label would be required. In the case of a pepperoni pizza, for instance, a label would be needed if the flour in the crust came from GMO grain, according to Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, who helped craft the bill.

By taking disclosure off the physical label, consumers have less-than-ideal access to information some might want to know, said William Lesser, a science and business professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “Many food consumers will simply not take the time needed to inform themselves about the ingredients of the many food items they purchase.”

Still, the Vermont law forced Congress’s hand, he said. in an e-mail. "The implementation of the Vermont mandatory GMO labeling bill on July 1 makes essential some form of federal labeling preemption,” he said. “The likelihood of a hodgepodge of individual state and local labeling laws would be confusing for consumers and costly for the food system, and ultimately consumers."

In the U.S. about 90 percent of alfalfa, cotton, canola, corn, soy, papaya, sugar beets, zucchini and yellow summer squash are genetically modified, according to the Bellingham, Washington-based organization Non-GMO Project.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-13/obama-ready-to-sign-food-label-bill-consumer-groups-find-suspect

MARKET IS RIGHTLY DRIVING FOOD PRODUCERS TO OPT OUT OF #GMOs

http://www.agweb.com/article/applegate-farms-moves-to-make-its-meat-gmo-free-blmg/

Applegate Farms Moves to Make Its Meat GMO-Free

JULY 13, 2016 08:50 AM

© USDA

By Bloomberg

• Email

Chicken lovers who demand more than the natural, organic, or free-range labels slapped on pretty much everything these days may be happily surprised to find a new product in the supermarket freezer: Applegate Farms has started shipping Non-GMO Project Verified organic chicken nuggets to retailers nationwide.

Sure, we’re talking nuggets here. But pledging to consumers that these U.S. chickens never ate a kernel of corn manipulated by transgenic science signals a significant escalation for Applegate. Just last year, this preeminent purveyor of natural and organic meats promised to eliminate all genetically modified ingredients from production. Now its organic nuggets are the first Applegate item to get the new Non-GMO seal—and they won't be the last. The company is announcingon Wednesday its commitment to guarantee that every one of its products—both organic and natural—is non-GMO, all the way up the supply chain to the animals’ feed.

“We just think people have the right to know what’s in the products they eat,” Applegate President Steven J. Lykken says.

The problem is that Applegate made its pledge in a country that's embraced GMO agriculture. Finding enough unsullied feed in America promises to be difficult.

For the nuggets, at least, there won’t be a change in animal husbandry, just the additional layer of verification required for the new label. Applegate’s organic products are already necessarily non-GMO. To be certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, genetically modified feed and ingredients are verboten. The next batch of items to be verified will be its 100 percent grass-fed beef from Uruguay and Australia. Again, by virtue of being all grass-fed, these cows weren’t eating any GMOs anyway.

It's Applegate's bigger line of “natural” products, a label which falls short of the USDA organic seal but complies with the company’s internal standards, that will see the biggest difference. These make up three-quarters of Applegate's business.

A Moveable Feast

Even as food companies liberally toss out the “natural” label at their peril—see the recent lawsuit against Applegate parent Hormel—Applegate actually defines the term. It says its natural products come from animals that are raised without antibiotics or added growth hormones, given 100 percent vegetarian diets, and raised humanely with space to engage in natural behavior.

Nevertheless, these animals still typically eat genetically modified corn and soy. About 90 percent of those crops in the U.S. are grown from genetically modified seeds, making the process of finding non-GMO options in America an enormous challenge. As a result, many companies must import their non-GMO ingredients from abroad. “There are currently about 40 countries worldwide in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America with outright bans on GMOs, making sourcing non-GMO ingredients from outside the U.S. an appealing option,” the Non-GMO Project said.

This is where Applegate stands to make the biggest impact. The company, which projected $340 million in sales last year, says it plans to source the non-GMO feed for its farms domestically. While the new commitment will require changes from only 672 of the company's nearly 2,500 farms, the feed growers, haulers and storage facilities that serve all of Applegate's farms will also need to get tested for cross-contamination as part of the Non-GMO Project verification.

Certified non-GMO crops do sell at higher prices, but stakeholders are reluctant to take the leap because they also require more work and money throughout the supply chain. Partners like feed-mill owners, says Applegate's Lykken, “need the line of sight of a customer” to know it’s the right investment to make, and Applegate is now providing that.

That other food companies might take advantage of its efforts and dip into these newly verified non-GMO suppliers doesn’t worry Lykken, who says it goes hand-in-hand with the company’s mission to “change the meat we eat.”

What Does 'Natural' Really Mean?

No matter how many guarantees one makes that soy- or corn-based vegetarian feed is non-GMO, by some definitions, food produced on an industrial scale can never truly be natural.

“From an evolutionary, before-man perspective, both pigs and chickens are omnivorous,” says Matt Poore, a ruminant nutrition specialist at North Carolina State University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. They are certainly not vegetarians. Chickens love worms and insects, and pigs will eat almost anything. Cattle, meanwhile, are natural foragers, and for most of their lives still are—even industrially produced beef cattle usually only eat grain at the end of their lives.

A truly natural diet would vary widely by species, says Lykken: “That ‘natural’ designation in itself is a powder keg of questions.”

Whether a Non-GMO Project Verified label on a natural or organic product will answer those questions, or exacerbate them, remains to be seen.

Meaningful or Marketing?

A GMO is a genetically modified organism, something seen in America most commonly in farm products such as corn, soy and sugar beets. As corporate agriculture joined with the chemical industry to change the genetic makeup of crops and make them less susceptible to drought or insects, these artificially occurring versions of earth's bounty have made their way, in one form or another, into your soda, snacks and steak. While GMO defenders point to the mountains of science deeming them safe, there is no shortage of warnings out there that what we don't know might harm us, and that consumers are at least entitled to know whether a certain package contains any GMOs.

So, savvy shoppers will ask as they seek to avoid GMOs: If the product is organic, wasn’t it already made without them?

In short, yes. But that's besides the point as far as marketers are concerned. “Non-GMO” is another surefire way to sell premium food products to an increasingly food-conscious public. Retail sales in the U.S. of food and beverages labeled as non-GMO were estimated at $200 billion in 2014 and projected to reach $330 billion by 2019. That represents a 65 percent increase compared with the rest of the food and beverage market’s 13 percent rise, according to a report from Packaged Facts. Sales of non-GMO foods are growing faster than organics in U.S. supermarkets, according to a recent news report.

“The difference here is one more step of endorsement, which includes testing,” Lykken says. “This is just one more piece of consumer confidence that we can offer.” (The USDA also performs periodic testing for organic certification.)

Shoppers will certainly spend more for the confidence that comes with that little non-GMO label. “This really isn’t about science or safety,” Lykken says. “It’s about transparency and responding to the marketplace.”

“It’s about marketing,” says Michael Halen, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence focusing on packaged food. “People want healthier products, whether or not there’s scientific evidence behind the change.”

OSGATA (ORGANIC SEED GROWERS and TRADE ASSOCIATION) DUMPS OTA OVER DARK Act

The Board of Directors of farmer-run OSGATA has voted unanimously to withdraw as a member of Organic Trade Association and to terminate OTA's membership in OSGATA over their role in the Stabenow-Roberts GMO Labeling law preemption bill (DARK Act  Stabenow-Roberts (S.764). PRESS RELEASE HERE: Please share our press release with your lists. http://www.osgata.org/2016/organic-dumps-ota/ ORGANIC FARMER GROUP Dumps ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION  OSGATA Cites Betrayal Over Monsanto-Backed GMO LABELING BILL Washington, ME, July 13, 2016 – By a unanimous vote of its Board of Directors, the organic farmer-controlled Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) has withdrawn its membership from the Organic Trade Association (OTA).  OSGATA’s decision was prompted by OTA’s duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers when a small number of OTA board members endorsed a dangerous Senate bill that would immediately preempt existing strong state GMO Labeling laws that are widely supported by the Organic community and ninety percent of consumers. Biotech giant Monsanto is universally recognized within the Organic community as organic’s greatest threat.  Recent revelations have made clear that the OTA has created numerous close partnerships with Monsanto including intensive lobbying efforts by the notorious biotech-linked lobbyist Podesta Group on behalf of the deal brokered by Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts (R-KS).  The Stabenow-Roberts (S.764) is a Senate bill – backed by industrial agriculture and large food conglomerates and whose primary intent are nullifying of historic mandatory GMO Labeling laws passed by huge margins in Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and Alaska legislatures and relieving multinational food companies of the requirement to clearly label products that were produced by genetic engineering.   OTA support for the Monsanto-backed bill proved essential for passage. Last week Stabenow-Roberts passed in the Senate by a narrow four-vote margin of victory on a vote of 63-30. “It’s important for the world to understand that it was the Organic Trade Association that killed our state GMO labeling laws by backing Monsanto’s Stabenow-Roberts bill,” said Maine organic seed farmer and longtime OSGATA President, Jim Gerritsen.  “It’s clear that Organic Trade Association has come under the control of a small group of lobbyists controlled by giant-food corporations that also own organic brands.  In an effort to protect their own bottom lines and those of their parent companies, the reckless actions of these large parent-owned organic companies threaten the survival of organic farmers and the organic community we have all worked so hard for decades to build.  The Organic Trade Association can no longer be trusted and it’s clear that organic farmers can no longer condone this dubious trade association’s troubling behavior.  Effective immediately, the farmer-run organic seed trade group OSGATA resigns from OTA and we call on other honest organic organizations and companies to do the same.” OTA’s efforts in support of the industry-backed bill included misleading assertions made to its membership and the public about what the bill would accomplish.  These assertions included false statements that the bill will require mandatory disclosure of GMO ingredients nationwide and would cover thousands more products than Vermont’s and other states’ GMO labeling laws.  The FDA, Consumers Union, and numerous others have pointed out that the bill’s definitions, ambiguities, lack of penalty authority, and other provisions fail to guarantee on-package product transparency. Further, OTA’s efforts had the intentional effect of misleading Senators into believing the bill had the full backing of the organic industry when the truth was the exact opposite.  The OSGATA Board of Directors has terminated OTA’s membership in OSGATA due to violations of OSGATA’s Code of Ethics.  OSGATA’sCode of Ethics requires that members refrain from false or misleading statements to the public and/or conduct that brings discredit on OSGATA or himself/herself.  See, OSGATA Bylaws, Article 8 – Code of Ethics. “OSGATA is a well-respected farmer-run membership trade organization dedicated to protecting and developing organic seed for organic farmers around the world” said Lisa Stokke, OSGATA Board officer and representative from OSGATA-member Food Democracy Now! based in Iowa.  “OTA’s devious actions constitute serious violations of our Code of Ethics and dictated that OSGATA immediately terminate their membership.  OSGATA’s withdrawal from OTA and their termination of membership serves to completely sever OSGATA from any further destructive actions by the OTA and the handful of dishonest corporate lobbyists that falsely represented the organic industry to our elected officials in Washington DC.  It’s important to us that Congress and the public understand that OTA’s values and interests do not match nor represent that of the Organic community, including organic family farmers and the millions of organic consumers who purchase more than $40 billion of organic food annually based on a relationship of trust, openness and transparency.” OSGATAad been a member of OTA for eight years.  OSGATA’s members had become distressed in recent years over OTA’s increasingly divisive behavior on many issues important to organic farmers.  In 2015, by a unanimous vote of its membership, OSGATA members voted to vigorously oppose OTA’s proposal for an involuntary tax on organic farmers, known as the “Organic Checkoff”.   OTA continues to misrepresent its Organic Checkoff proposal to federal officials as having widespread support among organic farmers.  OTA’sfalse assertions have been strongly challenged by a growing army of vocal opponents. OSGATA gained notoriety in 2011 when it became lead plaintiff in the landmark federal lawsuit, OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, in which organic farmers and their allies fought to challenge the validity of Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents and sought court protection for farmers from potential Monsanto patent infringement litigation should Monsanto’s patented seed trespass onto and contaminate their organic crops.   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., rewarded farmers with a partial victory when it held that Monsanto is judicially estopped from suing any farmer whose crops inadvertently become contaminated by trace amounts of Monsanto’s patented seed technology. “In OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, we showed we weren’t afraid to stand up to the biggest patent bully on the face of the planet,” said farmer and OSGATA board member, Lyn Howe of Beach Road Farm in Hawaii and acting Director for Hawaii Seed Growers Network.  “Now that it’s become clear OTA has teamed up with Monsanto and is endangering everything that we believe in, this is the last straw. It’s high time we leave OTA behind and join and work with others who understand organic farming is the right way to farm and the wave of the future.” Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association OSGATA is a farmer-controlled national non-profit membership trade organization of certified organic farmers, certified organic seed companies, organic seed professionals, affiliate organizations and individuals dedicated to the advancement of certified organic seed.  OSGATA is committed to protecting, promoting and developing the organic seed trade and its growers, thereby assuming that the organic community has access to excellent quality certified organic seed, free of genetic contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture. Contact: Lisa Stokke, Secretary, OSGATA Board of Directors (303)667-1192  /  press@osgata.org  /  www.osgata.org PO Box 362 Washington, ME 04574 Jim Gerritsen, President Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association Washington, Maine www.osgata.org 207)429-9765 office NY Times. The Elders of Organic Farming. Jim Gerritsen Keynote at 34th National Pesticides Forum Jim Gerritsen Speaks at United Nations (Begins Minute 32:25). www.woodprairie.com Wood Prairie on Facebook Wood Prairie's Blog

US NON-LEGISLATURE OFFERS USA NON-LABEL GMO LABELS

http://tinyurl.com/gueho68

Farm and Food: The Land of Non

·         ALAN GUEBERT Columnist

 

 

·         For years, we Americans have been perfecting the art of non-action action. It began about a generation ago with the non-apology apology: “If I offended you, I apologize.” Later we moved on to the non-committal commitment: “I’ll be there unless I get a better offer.”

Now, courtesy of Congress, our non-legislating legislature, we might soon be buying non-label labeled food.

Congress reached this state of higher non-ness by carefully noting what the American public overwhelmingly and repeatedly has said it wants—country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat and poultry and the labeling of all food that contains ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—before choosing to do just the opposite.

In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives tackled the public’s GMO labeling demand by punting; it voted 275-to-150 in favor of voluntary GMO labeling. In the Land of Non, voluntary labeling means, of course, almost everyone will voluntarily not label food that contains GMOs.

Not to be outdone by the non-labeling labelers in the House, the U.S. Senate finally awakened to act on June 29 when it easily approved (68-to-29) a procedural vote to move its complicated GMO labeling bill to a full Senate vote.

Unlike the House’s voluntary non-labeling standard, though, the Senate bill contains a mandatory labeling standard—albeit one with more dodges in it than a used car lot. The shiniest clunker is something the Senate chose to call the “bioengineered food disclosure system.”

The name alone is certain evidence that Big Food’s lawyers and Big Ag’s lobbyists have already washed, rinsed, and waxed the pending bill to ensure it contains the highest possible level of effective ineffectiveness. With this outside help, anti-government government insiders reshaped the Senate bill into pure shapelessness.

For example, under the Senate language, large food companies have three options to label any GMO ingredients contained in their products.

First, explains the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the companies can place a “barcode or QR code”—a quick response code—on its food labels. Those codes, however, “require consumers (to) use a smartphone to find more information about a product.”

So no smart phone, no food info; that’s so dumb it’s clever.

Second, a company can use “a symbol on the package” to denote its contents are GMO. What symbol? The one “to be created by U.S. Department of Agriculture.” That shouldn’t take long, eh?

Or, third, the food company can place “an actual on-package statement that the product contains GMOs.” A simple, uncomplicated label? Brilliant!

Critics of the Senate bill quickly point out, however, that most food companies will choose the first two, less transparent labeling loopholes for non-labeling labels and few, if any, would choose to openly label.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also, sees trouble in the Senate bill because it gives new food labeling authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture “that is otherwise under FDA’s sole regulatory jurisdiction…”

For example, explains a FDA “Technical Assistance memo” that dissects the Senate Bill, “We note that (a) provision to allow information regarding the GE,” or genetically engineered, “content of food to be present only in an electronically accessible form”—the barcode and QR code exceptions in the bill—“and not on the package label would be in tension with FDA’s statute and regulations, which require disclosures on food labels.”

Tension, indeed.

Also, notes the FDA memo, “The definition of ‘bioengineering” used in the Senate bill “would be somewhat narrow” and likely mean that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill…”

That’s not an accident. It is, in fact, exactly what you would do if you want to write a non-labeling label law that, first, doesn’t conform to current law and, second, will likely never become law.

But that’s the trick in running a non-legislating legislature, right? If you actually do anything, it must—by definition—end up doing exactly nothing.

The Farm and Food File is published weekly through the U.S. and Canada. Source material, past columns and contact information are posted at www.farmandfoodfile.com.

NO HEARINGS, NO TESTIMONY, VERMONT DEMANDS STATES RIGHTS TO LABEL GMOs

Vermont advocates slam US Senate approval of federal GMO bill

Federal bill caters to the whims of the corporate food industry rather than actually providing consumers information

EXCERPT: Rural Vermont Executive Director Andrea Stander [said:] “This bill had no hearings. It had no witnesses. It had no testimony. They didn’t allow any amendments. I mean it’s just an outrage. I mean over 90 percent of Americans in poll after poll after poll have said they want this information and they want it in a simple accessible way. What the Senate passed last night does none of that.”
—

Vermont advocates slam US Senate approval of federal GMO bill 

By Pat Bradley
WAMC, 8 July 2016
http://wamc.org/post/vermont-advocates-slam-us-senate-approval-federal-gmo-bill#stream/0

Late Thursday the U.S. Senate approved federal GMO labeling legislation and moved the bill to the House for consideration. In Vermont, where the first-in-the-nation mandatory GMO labeling law went into effect last Friday, advocates say the federal bill caters to the whims of the corporate food industry rather than actually providing consumers information.

Senators voted 63-30 to move the measure proposed by Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow and Kansas Republican Pat Roberts to the House.  The bill would allow food companies to label foods with GMO’s using words, a symbol or an electronic QR code readable by smartphone.

During floor statements Thursday, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy called the measure a farce, and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal said it was neither practical, logical nor fair to consumers.

In Vermont, whose mandatory GMO labeling law became effective July 1st, proponents are incensed by the Senate vote.

Rural Vermont Executive Director Andrea Stander quips that she was tempted to throw her computer against the wall as she watched the Senate debate. She is outraged by what she calls misinformation and manipulation by corporate food industry.  “I think it’s bad on many, many levels. Some of it is the content of the bill which has so many loopholes that even the FDA has said that very few products will end up being labeled. But I think what’s more egregious is the process. This bill had no hearings. It had no witnesses. It had no testimony. They didn’t allow any amendments. I mean it’s just an outrage. I mean over 90 percent of Americans in poll after poll after poll have said they want this information and they want it in a simple accessible way. What the Senate passed last night does none of that.”

Vermont Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Paul Burns found claims by supporters of the legislation that it’s the first time such information will be available galling. “Labels are already being placed on food products across the nation because of Vermont’s law. And second under the federal scheme put forward through this bill there will never be any labels on food products that humans can read. At least not if that food manufacturer chooses not to put such a label on the product. And that means I think that anybody who claims that this federal bill will require labels and give consumers good clear information is simply not telling the truth.”

Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont Policy Advisor Maddie Monty is disappointed, angry and frustrated. She believes the Senate voted in favor of corporations and food manufacturers rather than consumers. “Our biggest issues with this legislation was really the Q.R. code 1-800 number options are a way for manufacturers who don't want to divulge this information to bury it while still claiming that they're providing that information to consumers. Obviously we’re upset that it preempts Vermont’s law which went into effect exactly a week ago today and sets a much stronger standard for mandatory labeling. The definition of genetic engineering or bioengineering under this bill is very narrow and actually a lot of analysts have said that this bill would actually exclude a lot of products. And one of the major red flags for us is that it does not come with any federal penalties for violations.”

Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic Acting Director Laura Murphy notes that if the measure passes the House and the president signs it, there would still be some things that would play out before Vermont’s law would actually be preempted. “There are likely to be some questions about the scope and extent of preemption the way this federal bill is drafted. What exactly would be preempted in Vermont? And then the other thing, and I think this could happen, is there might actually be a legal challenge filed against the federal law and so then we would see how that played out.”

Calls to the Grocery Manufacturers of America were not returned in time for broadcast. The organization issued a statement after the Senate’s preliminary vote calling the legislation a “…commonsense solution before the harmful effects of Vermont’s labeling law impact the nation’s entire food supply chain.”
 __________________________________________________________

Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal