Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- 8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical—And More Effective—Than the 'Chained CPI'
Popular content
Today's Top News
FDA Won’t Allow Food to Be Labeled Free of Genetic Modification: Report
'Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,' biotech spokesman says
That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification. (photo by Flickr user banlon1964) In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post's Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency "won't let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don't contain genetically modified ingredients."
The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.
It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.
It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.
"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the Post. Kucinich has repeatedly introduced bills in the House that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.
David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told the Post that "extra labeling only confuses the consumer. ... It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices."
The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon, which will be decided at an FDA advisory panel meeting this week, "comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food - where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains."
"The public wants to know and the public has a right to know," New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle told the Post. "I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
64 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is Kucinich questioning "whose interest the FDA is protecting" ?
It is perfectly clear that FDA is protecting the industry at the expense of the consumer.
Please see my post below about the "Food 'Safety' Act" that we need to STOP NOW! You KNOW the legislation is always called the opposite of what it really is nowadays! Call your Senators and tell them NO to S.510.
Large multi-national Agri-business paws are all over this one.
Don't be surprised when the FDA bureaucrats who pushed this get cushy jobs with self-same Frankenfood companies quite soon after they leave the employ of the federal government.
Big Ag and big Pharma have literally gotten away with murder in covering-up the truth with the governments help that they are poisoning us. I say, life in prison for any government agency personnel who aid and abet companies poisoning people.
They looked at Big War, Big Money and Big Insurance and thought, "how can we get in on this racket?" and found their answer.
Why isn't this a first amendment issue?
Newspapers are free speech.
Money is free speech.
Corporate donations are free speech.
Why isn't food free speech?
I guess the Supreme Court would rule that "There is a long standing tradition that you cannot talk with food in your mouth."
bystander,exactly,very good point.Next they will say "food cannot be labeled Organic" because ,"everything contains traces of synthetic chemicals".
peace
The reason the FDA deliberately goes out of it's way to stop labels that say "GMO free" of "Hormone Free" is simple: if people had that information they wouldn't buy those products.
Not only is the FDA acting on behalf of the industry it allegedly is supposed to be regulating, but it is deliberately preventing people from having the information they want.
We are not permitted to have a choice in what we eat if it means less agribusiness profits.
The solution is also simple: the administration in charge of our government can stop this industry control of our regulatory agencies.
So where's Obama?
Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm criticizing the President and must be an extreme-left wing whiner.
He's already accomplished so much and I ought to be grateful and eat my genetically-modified, hormone-saturated, frankenfood quietly.
All that is needed is the longterm studies that insure the public that genetically modified salmon does not pose a risk to thier health or environment. Oh wait, there arn't any.
About five years ago I watched a segment on CNN in which a host and and guest reporter were discussing a news item from Europe about resistance or protests against GMO foods. Both discussants expressed amazement that GMO foods were so unpopular in Europe while they had been smoothly accepted in the USA. They shook their heads. You just can't figure those crazy Europeans out. etc. etc.
Neither speaker commented on the obvious difference in the USA and European situations. In Europe GMO foods were labeled as such. In the USA the labeling was forbidden by the FDA and USDA. In Europe consumers were free to choose and chose against GMO. In the USA consumers were kept in ignorance and had to eat whatever their business and governmental 'leaders' offered for eating. USA consumers were saved from confusion by being kept stupid by the powers that be.
But a viewer of CNN would never have known it. Rather it was a case of happy US consumers and mysteriously resistant European consumers. No explanation offered. This is the news media. Keeping us stupid for the benefit of corporations that know best!
Yep, exactly.
Here is a golden opportunity for some food stores to thumb thesir noses at the FDA. Stores such as Whole Foods and Trader Joes could put signs up where they have GMO-free products, indicating that they are GMO-free.
Nothing the FDA could do about that.
in America's history, there have been grape boycotts, meat boycotts, and cheese boycotts.
O.K. America, if we don't KNOW, we don't BUY!
Business always says, consumers drive the market. of course we never believe that, it's profits that drive the market, so lets stop the profits!
AMERICA BOYCOTTS ALL SALMON! We'll buy again, we we know what's IN IT!
We start with the salmon and keep on going. We're not ASKING you FDA, we're TELLING YOU!
The only 'chain' stores [Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, etc] that are not partially owned by corporate bullies are your local Co-Ops. That's where you need to buy your groceries, and that is where this battle will be fought. Support your local CoOp Food Store.
So much for free speech. Set aside the idea of requiring a company to identify everything in the products it makes that go inside a human body. What we have here is a prohibition on a company's right to voluntarily identify what is in its products. The rationale ("implies harm from other products") a) makes no sense -- producers tout that their products are better than their competitors -- that's the entire process of selling in a competitive market -- do we stop Volvo from advertising how their safety record compares to their competition? of course not); and b) the rationale shows that the federal agency is acting to protect the revenues of some, but clearly not all, of the enterprises it oversees, and not to protect citizens from those enterprises, which is supposedly why they were created.
Of course it's not a surprise on these pages that going back to Nixon and continuing over administrations of both parties ever since, that almost every federal regulatory agency has been converted into a reception room for corporate lobbyists and have been doing nothing but working to expand markets for producers rather than protecting consumers from producers. What needs to happen is a class action by non-adulterated food suppliers. I'm not sure that The Supremes can rule for the corps on this one. The charges of these agencies in the original legislation that created them are in writing.
If it's not any different, then why just stick with the food as it is?
If it's not any different, then why just stick with the food as it is?
Wrong.
no, right.
Monstanto genes have been found in crops grown by indigenous peoples in the Andes.
See, there is this pesky thing called pollen that floats in the air.
Unless the plants are grown in hermetically sealed indoor conditions, pollen from GMO crops, even thousands of miles away, can contaminate any crop of the same type.
Nothing against the organic farmers that try to limit this contamination, but it's just not possible to do.
There was a case in Canada a few years back, where an organic farmer was sued by Monsanto for not paying them for the genes in his crops that they owned a patent to, even though he had been using his own seeds that he had spent decades cultivating. They won, because his crops, much to his chagrin, had been contaminated.
Due to the large amounts of open air fields of corn, soy, wheat, rice, and canola, this contaminated pollen has, at least in part, contaminated all of those crops on the planet.
unfortunate, but true.
The problem here is that the FDA is suppose to be looking out for the health and welfare of the American people. However, since Ronald Reagan it would seem that they are looking out for the health and welfare of the big Ag corporations and the Bio-Tech industry instead!
Where's the vaunted Obama "change"? Oh yeah, that was done on election night when he said "change has come to America".
Yes. It started with Donald "Aspartame" Rumsfeld.
They just want to make sure nobody interferes with their Genetically Modified Profits (and kickbacks).
WARNING: If you see a tiny head growing in your arm pit please seek medical attention before the head starts talking to you. We have no responsibility for what that head might say. Do not show your arm pit to Elizabeth Warren merely because you like the cut of her jib. She works for a different department.
Remember the mad cow disease epidemic? It could be passed to humans. When that was rampant some producers tested their animals and wanted to advertise them as tested free of the disease. The FDA made a rule against doing that, too, even though the disease is deadly.
Huh? Am I kidding? No. This was to protect John Morrell, etc. so they did not have to go to expense of testing (or demanding that the cattle feeders that brought the cattle to their slaughter house) the cattle they slaughter by the tens of thousands each day. They were afraid the small producer who wanted to advertise that their cattle had tested free of the disease would get an advantage over John Morrell, et al.
That's right, while giving the corporations the right to free speech in the form of giving unlimited money to politicians who make the laws and rules,small cattlemen don't have the right to tell people their cattle have been tested. We all know this county is falling deeper and deeper into complete corporate control.
Give us a break! Mr Edwards director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization said “It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”
Differentiation of products that are essentially not different has been and is the essence of capitalist marketing and advertising. It's the American way. Of course Daz washes whiter than white. This told so so much and helped consumers choose. Didn’t it.
Surely as a consumer who has a predilection for non-genetically modified foods I can select my food and the supplier accordingly. I suppose they’ll be telling Jews that Kosher is irrelevant or Muslims that they don’t need to know if its Halal… “Too much information makes it hard for the consumer”, What bull.
Ya, why not make it a religious issue? I'm sure there must be some sect that cannot abide tampering with God's creation! That would put the cat among the pigeons, or would it make a cat into a pigeon? LOL
To reply to the last Q:
Maybe it's a GMO catpigeon - a flying ratkiller?
Time to drag out those old, rusted underground trains.
All the more reason to buy from your local farmers, grow and can your own food, and stop buying processed food and produce from Del Monte and ConAgra. I buy salmon from a friend who is a tribal member, and I get them whole so I would know if I got one of those big, "plastic" fish.
It would be great if we could just designate our region a "GMO-Free Zone", to reduce cross-contamination of GMO plants with healthy, normal plants.
The Obama Admin.: all sold out to corporate greed since the day they took office. Progressives, liberals, union members, peace advocates, anti-Bush activists: chucked under the corprate greed bus. Obama may sound a little bit progressive when he speaks, but he is pure corporate when he acts. Obama wants to be a Republican when he grows up...
All candidates know they can not get elected without corporate money. How many organizations out there are giving money for the middle class or poor people? I will never give another dime to a politician until campaigns are financed by gov. and all candidates get the same amount. No contributions from anyone. Then watch the candidates pander to the people instead of corporations.
Does this ruling mean that a web-site, not directly connected to any food company, could not legally indicate that a food is not a gmo?
Does this mean that I could not tell another person that a product is not a gmo?
Hmmm, how about "sugar-free" products? or "fat-free"? or "cholesterol-free"? or the requirement that MSG be identified if included? How about the labeling that tells folks a product was made with machinery that processes peanuts? How about "dolphin-safe" or MSC certified? Can the FDA GUARANTEE GMOs pose NO risks to ANYONE?
The medical community had better hop on this one ....
the US medical community would like nothing better than to see an increase in cancers and other non-curable (but "treatable") diseases, as they are big profit generators.
Thus the assault on holistic medicine, the cancer society's blocking of studies linking pesticides and pollutants to cancer, the pink ribbons on hair dye containing carcinogens.
Look into the story of Wilhelm Reich sometime. (hint: he found what seemed to be an actual cure for cancer, and instead of looking into it, the FDA stuck him in prison and the AMA burned his books and research)
Perhaps you might want to reconsider tarring all members of "the medical community" with the same brush. As a member of that community, i have no desire to see "an increase in cancers and other non-curable (but "treatable") diseases". There is no doubt that medicine has, to a very great extent, become "big business", but there are many members of that "community" who decry that development and wish to return it to the "service" profession it once was and can be again ....
Everything you eat has been genetically modified for thousands of years. If it hadn't been there would be no crops and the world would be starving to death right now. Your dog is genetically modified. It used to be a wolf until humans got a hold of it and bred it into a cuddly fur ball. The most important thing about food and health is how much you eat. If you eat too much then you're killing yourself.
HAHAHA!!! Good Joke, BillyD. And Canolla naturally breeds with bacteria, and strawberries naturally breed with bacteria...say, remember High School Biology? One distinctive characteristic of speciation is that...species cannot crossbreed!!!
Nature does not have gene guns that shoot little pieces of one species genes into another specie. Nor does it have to add even more species genes to make the whole shaky process work.
Canis lupus (grey wolf) and Canis lupus familiaris...also sometimes known as Canis domesticus, or dog, are all sprouts off of the same tree. Evolution and genetic engineering are not the same thing.
Overly great changes brought by traditional breeding can produce living things like cuddly "fur balls" that couldn't survive in nature, but that misses the point completely.
Modifying genes by selective breeding is not the same as "Genetically Modified" today. During selective breeding they never spliced in genes from totally unrelated species or even from animals to plants or vice versa. Consumption of these completely new living things must be strictly monitored for longterm effects. Without proper labeling it is impossible to include GMO products in any epidemiological studies in the future. This is a crime against our future generations.
There will not BE any 'future generations'! Independent studies show by the 2nd and 3rd generation of rats and mice are completely sterile from GMO feed. It is a crime against US!!! See: www.responsibletechnology.org/ and my post below about the Senate bill we need to fight NOW!
Interestingly enough, to you, apparently GMO Apples look the same as GMO Oranges.
The D stands for "dumb."
What, no issue of national security being compromised involved here?
Now our government is concerned about the fact that we might become confused?
BULLSHIT!! they have never tried to do anything except confuse us ever since the great communicator declared catsup a vegetable and promised to cut down all forests because pine trees caused air pollution. Big business has made out like bandits and we have suffered from confusion about when the money was going to finally trickle down.
Now, thirty years later, the seeds sown by Bonnie Ronnie are yielding forth their mighty harvest: There is talk of closing schools, cutting social security, cutting food stamps, and no exit from the Mid East in sight. Unemployment is at 15% officially, and in reality probably twice that.
Michelle and Barack have no public works programs planned? Even with our infrastructure falling apart? Louis and Marie, if this is democracy maybe we should try tyrrany for a while.
Gee, what happened to the SCOTUS decision that corporations have the same rights as people, say like the freedom of speech for instance, where a co. can declare that their food is GMO free. Oh, that's right, Monsanto supersedes even SCOTUS in the eyes of the FDA.
Let's see, Obama has appointed how many former Monsanto employees to form his Agri-Chem policies. And the WH doesn't understand why they've lost the liberal base.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” - Albert Einstein
"The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Nagamaki, good quotes.
Nagamaki asked "Gee, what happened to the SCOTUS decision that corporations have the same rights as people[?]..."
The answer is that the "Citizens United" decision of SCOTUS was about free speech in the political arena which has a high degree of protection. Traditionally there has been a different standard used when applied to 'commercial' speech. Although in recent years, the gap has been closing, I have little doubt that SCOTUS will be more than able to approve the one and restrict the other on that basis.
Another Ralph Waldo Emerson quote that fits Obama: " what you are speaks so loudly that what you say you are is never heard ".
Next we will be told the FDA has approved not labeling OMS'S. Oil modified shellfish and other fish from the Gulf because it is too confusing to consumers to label otherwise!
A case of Political Correctness taken to a new level hitting free speech and info. It's not very good for society to segregate itself from the truth of matters this way. Jokularly mildly put.
Maybe they - whoever they are - should cut to the quick and make adherence to Political Correctness - however vague that is - compulsory and all else considered terrorism.
This is a case of Corporate Correctness moreso than Political Correctness.
The corporate policy goals must not be offended.
q
Shouldn't you be free to say whatever it is you want on your label so long as you comply with the ingredient list and other important facts portion of the label?
I buy hemp soap with lots of godly notations all over the bottle. I buy it because the soap is great and I don't care if the people making it believe Jesus is telling them to make it. No one is stopping them from saying whatever they want, so why would an addition like "non-GMO" be outside of the boundaries of free speech?
Wouldn't it be possible to sue the FDA for violating the first amendment?