Grocery Manufacturers Association Plans To File Suit Against Vermont Over GMO Labeling Law

The Grocery Manufacturers Association issued the following statement on May 8 in response to Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s signing into law of HB 112, a bill that would require mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients in the state of Vermont:

“Today, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law HB 112, a bill that is critically flawed and not in the best interests of consumers. It sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association says that the GMO labeling law in Vermont "Sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers." USDA photo by Stephen Ausmus.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association says that the GMO labeling law in Vermont “Sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers.” USDA photo by Stephen Ausmus.

Advertisement

“GM crops are safe and have important benefits for people and our planet. They use less water and fewer pesticides, reduce crop prices by 15% to 30%and can help us feed a growing global population of seven billion people. The FDA, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and U.S. National Academy of Science have all found that foods and beverages that contain GM ingredients are safe and materially no different than conventionally produced products.

“Consumers who prefer to avoid GM ingredients have the option to choose from an array of products already in the marketplace labeled ‘certified organic.’ The government therefore has no compelling interest in warning consumers about foods containing GM ingredients, making this law’s legality suspect at best.  In light of this fact, in the coming weeks GMA will file suit in federal court against the state of Vermont to overturn the law.

Top Articles
Have a Plan For Climate Change? Why Fruit Growers Need To Act Now

“We encourage policymakers in Vermont and across the nation to support alternative legislation that would ensure that food labels are accurate and consistent for consumers. Bipartisan federal legislation, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, HR 4432, would require a label on foods containing GM ingredients if the FDA – our nation’s foremost food safety authority – determines there is a health or safety risk. Any labeling of GM ingredients would therefore be based on science, not fear or the varying politics of the 50 states. Specifically, HR 4432 would:

  • Eliminate Confusion: Remove the confusion and uncertainty of a 50-state patchwork of GMO safety and labeling laws and affirm the FDA as the nation’s authority for the use and labeling of genetically modified food ingredients.
  • Advance Food Safety: Require the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new GMO traits before they are introduced into commerce.  FDA will be empowered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with an ingredient derived from a GMO.
  • Inform Consumers: The FDA will establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients so that consumers clearly understand their choices in the marketplace.
  • Provide Consistency: The FDA will define the term “natural” for its use on food and beverage products so that food and beverage companies and consumers have a consistent legal framework that will guide food labels and inform consumer choice.”

Source: Grocery Manufacturers Association news release

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

This type of reply by the GMA is going to be VERY bad press for them. The media will point towards the more than 60 countries that BAN GMO foods, including China (China rejected GM corn from the US as unsafe for their citizens). Imagine China of all places saying GMO is unsafe and it MUST be labeled.

What GMA fears is what happened in Europe. When consumers have a choice and know WHAT is in their food, they reject GMOs.

Using less water and less pesticide is a 100% bold face lie. Almost all GMO crops now have a round-up resistance trait. This means MORE acres are sprayed with Round-up, which is a pesticide, than have ever been sprayed in the past.

Crops that carry Bt Cry toxins are the 2nd most common trait. There is environmental pollution due to the amount of Cry toxins that are returned to the environment as part of the decomposing plant material. Spraying Bt toxins is actually safer than growing a GMO crop with this trait, but it requires more input and time and makes the large seed companies less money.

The EXACT same concerns were raised when nutritional labeling was put into effect. They said people were too dumb to understand what the label information said, etc. These are all lies by the GMA to allow adulterated foods on the market.

USDA organic encompasses MUCH more than just GMOs. It is whole different farming methodology. It is not comparing apples to apples. A similar comparison would be state “Consumers don’t need to know how efficient a vehicle is. If they want a fuel efficient car they can buy a hybrid.”

I fully support the labeling of products that contain GMOs. A single line such as “This product may contain ingredients that have been artificially genetically modified/engineered” added at the end of the ingredient list is all that would be necessary. DONE. Complaint in all 50 states.

The GMA does not want this as then the consumer can easily choose conventionally grown products that don’t contain GMOs. The large cereal and corn producers wants nothing to do with competition. Speaking of that, Cherrios is now GMO free and they put it on the label. They obviously see the trend and are taking action now.

This action by the GMA is going to be seen in a similar light to the company (Mediabridge) that sued a user who filed a negative review on Amazon.com about their faulty router they received. The consumer backlash against this type of “sue em” behavior is almost always negative. If big ag wants to be trusted by the public, they need to stop looking like a bully that wants to hide information from consumers about the food that they are eating.

Avatar for Tom Tom says:

I say good for Vermont standing up for what is right. Leaving it up to FDA as to whether labels are needed on a product-by-product basis is having the fox guard the henhouse. FDA allowed no labels on GMO foodstuffs in the first place.

Avatar for Ellen Ellen says:

Actually Round-up is a herbicide not a pesticide. Bt has been a mainstay of the organic movement for years as it is considered safer than organophosphates and other pesticides. The problem is that the general public does NOT understand the complexities of this issue and I find that many of the small growers I speak with don’t either. I am constantly fielding calls from growers who do not understand that an F1 hybrid is not a GMO! If the folks growing and selling your food do not have a clear picture of the issue how can we expect the general populace to understand. People I speak with think organic means no pesticides were used in the production of that food! The problem as I see it is this, new technology scares folks, we fear what we don’t understand. Because we don’t understand, we are open to others opinions and agendas.

The facts are this, we are not slowing down the addition of people on this globe, we need to feed those people or face starvation and political instability, we face climate change which will make that task monumental, we will need advances in technology to help us do that.The price of food will continue to rise and at a faster pace then in the past. The pests will continue to evolve as they always have and what works today will not work in 5, 10 or 20 years. We need good science to just keep the pace of food production where it is. I see in my web browsing that there are groups out there working on new technology that will make GMO old school but until it is introduced we need to use every tool at our disposal. I think we are just seeing the beginning of what will be huge increases in the cost of food and the fact is that if we decided to grow everything organically today we could not feed everyone on this planet! Are we going to have a witch hunt with every advance that is developed? People we have some very tough choices in the future and we can hide our head in the sand for just so long and then we will be forced to deal with it and it will be much more painful than if we had discussed this without all the scare tactics that divided everyone and stalemated the progress of solving the problem at hand.

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

Ellen,

Any substance applied to a crop to control a pest (weeds are a pest) is classified as a pesticide. The definition of a pesticide is:

“a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals.”

Weeds are “other organisms.” All state pesticide regulation boards classify herbicides as a pesticide. Consumers think of Roundup as a herbicide, which is a class of pesticide.

“if we decided to grow everything organically today we could not feed everyone on this planet!”

First that statement is a falsehood proposed by big ag who think that Organic production could not feed everyone. They then use statistics from circa 1900’s production practices to prove their point. This is like comparing a Ferrari to a Model T. It is a false comparison. Organic production today could EASILY feed every man woman and child on this plant PLUS all of the agronomic animals on the planet with plenty to spare. The idea that GMOs are needed to feed the planet is a LIE that many people just swallow.

Production practices between organic farms, conventional and GMO farms are different, but the core requirements to bring a good crop to market are NOT different. A corn crop, as an example, needs the right amount of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and micro elements along with a suitably weed free environment to produce a good harvest. Organic inputs come from different sources. Here is one of them:

Nitrogen:
1. Chicken Litter from the poultry farms
2. Manure from mammals
3. Legume crops that work with symbiotic organisms to fix nitrogen from the air.
4. Natural nitrate deposits.

Vetch can fix over 300lbs/acre of Nitrogen from the air if left to grow for a season (Amounts this high could lead to pollution). If used in fall planting, after a corn or soybean crop, and left to grow until mid to late May it will fix over 100lbs of Nitrogen. All of a corn crops yearly requirement.

Controlling weeds without herbicide relies on cultivation. I don’t know a weed yet that is resistant to a 2 ton cultivator.

The cultivars (varieties) used in vegetable production are almost ALL non-gmo. By your assertion the whole world can not be fed now, which is a lie. We run surpluses every year worldwide without GMOs in veggies. GMOs are mainly in cash GRAIN crops such as Soy, Corn and Rape seed, along with Cotton. Corn primarily goes for sugar and ethanol production (non-essential for foods). Soy goes to cooking oil and to a lesser extent as a binder in certain foods. Again, a non-essential food stuff.

GMOs are all about profit for big ag, intellectual property control (plant patents) and reduced work for large corporate farms. They push farmers to get bigger or lose their farm. A small farmer who owns 150 acres cannot live anymore on the production from 150 acres if growing cash grain crops. The profit margin has been pushed so low due to technology fees on seed, herbicide and fertilizer costs, etc. that small family farms cannot survive. They need to switch to more profitable vegetable or animal crops or leave farming. Farmers not being able to save seed, for example, costs them close to $100/acre in seed cost and technology fees each year.

That 150 acre farmer is now giving big seed company $15,000 each year in seed/technology fee costs instead of cleaning his own seed and replanting it. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of farmers and you have a huge wealth transfer from family farms to large corporate seed producers. The work seed producers do in breeding was formerly done at land grant universities with tax payer dollars. This seed development work by the university was paid as a one time royalty when acquiring the seed. The farmer could then replant his saved seed each year until he felt a newer variety came along that offered a reason to “upgrade” his seed. Now he is sued if he tries to save commercial seed.

Using terms like “Scare Tactics” is a way for industry to try and discredit other legitimate viewpoints. Whenever it is seen, a person needs to immediately recognize that it is an illegitimate argument.

Putting aside everything else, consumers should have a choice in knowing. Whether they understand what is on the box or not, they need to have the choice. If consumers don’t want GMOs, for whatever reason, they should have that choice if they want it. In Vermont the voters want it. Instead of suing the voters and the government, industry should simply comply and let consumers choose. GMO corn flakes for $2.50 a box or non-gmo corn flakes for $3.00/box. Some will choose the GMO for the lower cost. That should be their choice and not forced on them.

Avatar for Ellen Ellen says:

using the broadest classification all are pesticides, the sub-class herbicide is used in my industry to let growers know you are discussing an agent that kills weeds. I was trying to point your agenda led you to use trigger words as scare tactics which is useful if you want introduce fear but is useless for constructive debate. Why is it that when I grocery shop, organic products cost so much more than other foods? Is that because much of the product losses due to insect damage and reduced yield from competition with weeds has to be covered by the fruit that is saleable? Or is it you just want to mark the product up so high only the well off can afford to purchase it? Animal manures can spread disease as well, many cases of food poisoning have been directly linked back to animal waste run-off from adjacent farms into crops that are then marketed country wide causing huge outbreaks of disease.

The statement ” Organic production today could EASILY feed every man woman and child on this plant PLUS all of the agronomic animals on the planet with plenty to spare. Show me that data! as we see below you want to leave out the big three, don’t you think that skews things just a tad?

Lets look at some of your statements “The cultivars (varieties) used in vegetable production are almost ALL non-gmo. By your assertion the whole world can not be fed now, which is a lie. We run surpluses every year worldwide without GMOs in veggies. GMOs are mainly in cash GRAIN crops such as Soy, Corn and Rape seed, along with Cotton. Corn primarily goes for sugar and ethanol production (non-essential for foods). Soy goes to cooking oil and to a lesser extent as a binder in certain foods. Again, a non-essential food stuff.” I see you want to limit food supply to just what you term “veggies” and we should leave out wheat, corn and soy the three major world crops as not counting. You also state that soy is used as cooking oil and to a lesser extent binder in some foods, really? lesser extent? Take a trip to your grocery store and read some labels, soy oil or powder is in just about everything as is corn, corn syrup and starch! I was tempted to list them here but it just got ridiculous it was so long! I stand by my statement that we could not feed the 7 billion people on earth now, let alone the increase in population we will experience while taking into account looming global warming and erratic weather trends with totally organic methods. It just shows you are being deceptive when you now state you only meant what you term as veggies. I also take exception to you choice of labeling “This product may contain ingredients that have been artificially genetically modified/engineered” again with the scare tactics! Why would you not accept genetically modified? Why would we need the extraneous artificially and engineered unless you are trying to invoke a Frankenstein like image. In short I think you have an agenda for something you do not like and you are NOT above using questionable tactics to achieve your goal so this is the last time I’ll debate you. You are not open to really debate that helps solve a very real problem facing the world and farmer today.

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

“you want to leave out the big three, don’t you think that skews things just a tad? ”

Well this is a vegetable website so, yea, I tend to leave out cash grains. If this was Iowa Farmer or the Wisconsin Agriculturist then I would be harping on GMO in grains. As it is, the discussion here is about veggies, or at lease I thought it was.

As far as I know the only GMO veggies on the market are Corn and some summer squash. The only GMO tomato and potato were both pulled from the market after consumers and the fast food giants (McDonalds) rejected them. GMO (non-browning) apples may also be doomed. McDonalds and Gerber both publically stated they will not use them. This could mean growers will be very reluctant to add them to their varieties due corporate and consumer rejection.

As to links to prove organic farming can feed the world, well here is one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm

I can post many more, but let’s leave it at that one for now. At least the study was done by the university of Michigan so it is not an interest group for organic production which would be summarily rejected.

I, personally, don’t think 100% organic is necessary either. I have serious problems with GMO’s, SOME pesticides since they don’t break down into inert components and/or are persistent in the environment. I think changing the way we use conventional technology can provide a better product, that is safe for both the consumer and the environment.

One example if with Fertilizer. I think that fertilizer, when applied responsibly and from sources that don’t cause pollution in their manufacture or use, are a good use of technology. Potassium Nitrate can be easily made with virtually no pollution. When applied with drip irrigation and not leached we can get a crop utilization rate from 60-75%. If that veggie crop is then followed with a fall legume or cereal, almost all of the nutrients that were not used by the veggie crop can be captured by the legume. This allows it to be used as a green manure on a new crop or harvested for human consumption.

This is a good and proper use of synthetically produced fertilizer. There is little or no pollution and good nutrient use. If this is coupled with manure or other legumes then the amount of synthetic fertilizer use can be reduced further to makeup for any deficiencies the organic nutrient sources may have.

I don’t accept GMOs as safe because all of the long term feeding studies in animals show a decrease in health from their consumption. The people in our government are not independent scientists who do impartial testing. The regulators are people who worked for the companies that produce GMOs. They make laws recognizing them as safe when the long term studies do not prove this. ALL of the studies accepted by the government at 90 day studies. That is not long enough to prove safety. You could eat arsenic laced food for 90 days and not die, but if you did that for 10 years you would have poorer health than if you did not.

As to corn and soy being in many products, you are right they are. They are not their for their nutritional value in most foods. You should know that. Corn Starch, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Maltodextrin, etc. All from corn are used primarily as sweeteners or binders. They are NOT their for the nutritional value.

A lot of corn is fed to animals. It is not done because it is good for the animals. Steers fed a diet high in corn for more than 3-4 months will develop acidosis and get very sick. The high amount of corn changes the PH in their rumen and makes it more acidic. This allows organisms like E-Coli O157:H7 breeds in an acidic environment. Much of the beef contamination with this strain of human infective e-coli comes from confined animal feedlots that are unsanitary. The producers then put antibiotics into the feed to try and control this. People then then eat this beef with sub therapeutic levels of antibiotics are slowly breeding drug resistant bacteria.

All of this is made possible by GMOs. Cows should eat Grass as God and nature intended, humans should eat unadulterated raw foods as much as possible. Fruits, veggies, nuts and cooked learn protein raised on a diet natural for the animal.

I will let independent research, like the link I posted above, prove my points and not rely on commercial agri-business to tell me what is safe to eat and what is possible to agrinomically produce.

Regarding debate:
Debate requires that facts are presented that can prove a point. I am presenting those facts. You must also present facts that do not come from someone who has a financial interest in pushing GMOs.

Do we need GMOs to feed the world? The clear answer is no we do not. Do GMOs reduce pesticide use? No they do not. In most cases they increase them. Instead of spraying insecticide the plant, including the parts we consume, now produce them. We spray more herbicide now than ever before.

Do GMOs yield more per acre? No they do not. In many cases they yield less. See this report from February: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

“But in its report, the ERS researchers said over the first 15 years of commercial use, GMO seeds have not been shown to definitively increase yield potentials, and “in fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties,” the ERS report states.

Several researchers have found “no significant differences” between the net returns to farmers who use GMO herbicide tolerant seeds and those who use non-GMO seeds, the report states.”

This is a very common thread. I have two uncles that grow LARGE amounts of GMO corn and Soy. One uncle who grows Large amounts of non-GMO corn and soy. The latter uncle usually yields 5-10 bushel more per acre than the GMO. It is not just land type, variety, etc. This has been consistent. He is also one of the only farmers I know who still cultivates some of his corn crop.

If you want to have a debate you need to provide facts and back them up.

Advertisement