Edible San Francisco Winter 2012 : Page 10
edible AMUSE Just Label It BY NAOMI STARKMAN I n October, the Just Label It cam-paign—a broad-based coalition of nearly 400 businesses and organi-zations dedicated to food safety and consumer rights—filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in order to give consumers the right to know what is in our food. Since then, more than 470 consumer, healthcare, environmental and farming organizations, manufac-turers, and retailers have joined the campaign, which has generated over 550,000 consumer comments calling for the FDA to label GE foods. The goal of the campaign is to reach one million comments before the FDA public com-ment period ends in mid-April. GE food, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are foods that are altered at the molecular level in ways that could not happen naturally. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cos-metic Act requires the FDA to prevent consumer deception by clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits significant, “material” information. In 1992, however, the FDA issued a policy statement that defined “material” by the ability to be sensed by taste, smell or other senses. The FDA determined that GE Foods were “substantially equiva-lent” to conventionally produced foods, ruling that there is no “material” differ-ence and, thus, do not require labeling. After almost 20 years, this policy is still in effect today. “We are asking the FDA to change a decades-old and out-of-touch policy,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive direc-tor of the Center for Food Safety and lead author of the petition. “We want the FDA to require labeling on foods intentionally produced using genetic engineering.” Right now, the FDA is deciding whether to deregulate GE salmon and make it commercially available. Accord-ing to the FDA, a salmon that is geneti-cally engineered is not materially dif-ferent from a non-GE salmon because it does not taste, smell or feel different. Without a label to tell us differently, when eating GE salmon, the public will not know if what they are consuming has been genetically altered. Polls show that consumers demand transparency in the foods they buy and overwhelmingly support labeling of GE food. Ninety-five percent of consum-ers believe GE foods should be labeled, according to a poll conducted by the Consumers Union, and 93 percent of the American public want the federal government to require mandatory labeling. Labeling is required in other countries, including the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Brazil and China. While nearly 90 percent of corn, 94 percent of soy, and 90 percent of cot-tonseed grown in the U.S. are from GE seeds, the safety of GE crops for human consumption has not been adequately assured. Yet unlike the strict safety evaluations for approval of new drugs, there are no mandatory human clinical trials of GE crops, no tests for carci-nogenicity or harm to fetuses, no long term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and only limited testing for allergenicity—despite the fact that some studies raise concerns that GE foods may pose an allergen risk. Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stony-field and a founder of the Just Label It campaign, said, “While the pros and cons of GE foods are debated, an entire generation is growing up consuming them. Until we have no doubt that GE crops are safe to eat, consumers should have a choice about whether we want to eat them. GE foods must be labeled. Consumers need to know.” Hirshberg recently published “Label It Now,” the first consumer guide to GE foods avail-able at online booksellers. All proceeds 10 | EDIBLE SAN FRANCISCO WINTER 2012
Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here