As promised earlier... Debunking the Anti-105 Lies October 2, 2014 It has started. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and their partners in Monsanto, Dow, and Syngentra, as well as members PepsiCo and ConAgra, and local biotech fronts including the Colorado Farm Bureau, have begun their desperate and panicked fight against Proposition 105, which would require the labeling of their products as GMOs. So, it’s time to debunk their lies, taken directly from their website. The facts are taken directly from the proposition wording, available at sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/48Final.pdf LIE: “Proposition 105 would mandate a whole separate food labeling system in Colorado that conflicts with existing nationwide labeling standards and policies and would only exist in our state.” FACT: The proposition would add section (1)(q) to CRS 25-5-411, which would label a food as misbranded if it is not labeled as “Produced with Genetic Engineering,” with listed exceptions. It does NOT mandate any methodology for labeling, including no separate labels. In other words, the labels can simply be an added sticker on current packaging. So no, here is no mandate for a separate food labeling system and there never was one; producers can label as they see fit so long as they meet the requirement. As for processed foods, well, the food producers regularly relabel their packages for changes in ingredients, packaging type and size, seasonal and rebranding marketing, and when the federal government changes the nutrition labels, and they do that regularly, by computer, for minimal cost. FACT: There is no conflict with nationwide labeling standards, because the nationwide labeling standards do not change at all. Those standards apply to the nutritional panels on packages only and will not change. Furthermore, the nationwide standards are a minimum standard, and states are free to add to that minimum standard if they so choose, as California has done for years with its Proposition 65 warnings, which currently appear on food products nationwide. Even more so, there are over 100 organizations that certify and label organic products in play now, and that doesn’t affect nationwide organic labeling standards either. Those organizations have standards that meet or (thankfully) exceed the USDA Organic standard, and unlike the GMA, embrace the label instead of run from it. It is nonsense to believe that a GMO labeling standard conflicts with nationwide standards yet when the same labeling standard for organics does not. FACT: Three states have passed GMO labeling laws (CT, ME, VT). 64 nations worldwide have passed GMO labeling laws. 20 of those nations get labeled food exports from Colorado, so the manufacturers are already labeling their products in Colorado! So no, it would not exist only in Colorado. LIE: “That would require farmers and food producers in Colorado and throughout the country to separate, repackage and relabel their products and ingredients just for our state.” FACT: If a farmer is already producing both organic and GMO crops (which isn’t a good idea anyway), they are already required to do that in order to meet the organic certifications. If they want their products certified to be Kosher or Halal, then have to do that as well. The real objection here is the co-mingling of GMO and conventional non-GMO products and extending those practices. However, nowhere in Proposition 105 is there any mandate separation and repackaging and relabeling of products, let alone just for Colorado. Yes, adding the sticker could be considered relabeling, maybe in a very long stretch, but as California Proposition 65 labeling has shown, the producers are more likely to simply stick the label on the product no matter where it ships to. If there is a requirement to separate Colorado products and non-Colorado products, then that requirement is self-imposed by the manufacturers, not Proposition 105. LIE: “Several recent economic studies indicate that this would cost farmers, food producers, food manufacturers and distributors hundreds of millions of dollars — and ultimately increase grocery bills for Colorado families by hundreds of dollars per year.” FACT: Yes, they cite their sources, but there are other sources that say the opposite, such as Consumers Union, who say less than a penny a day per person. That’s under $15 a year for a family of four, or less than what they would pay for a trip to GMO-laced McDonalds. Or how about Dr. Shephard-Bailey at Emory University, who concluded that California’s Prop 37, which was GMO labeling in the same vein, had a negligible cost to consumers? (see anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GE-Food-Act-Costs-Assessment.pdf) Hundreds of dollars? Not even close. If there is a hundreds of dollars increase in people’s grocery bills, it will be because the GMA raises their prices in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In common terms, that’s a con-game. FACT: The Cornell source they cite is found at dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf, and that study was bought and paid for, with a pre-ordained result, by the biotech industry—it’s even stated that in the study itself! That alone makes that study suspect, even as it is inflated by the GMA to call the cost $500 a year, which is inaccurate. FACT: The Washington Research Council study, found at researchcouncil.files.wordpress/2013/08/initiative522fullfinal.pdf, cites estimates from the Northridge Environmental Managements Consultants, which is a Georgetown (DC) “consulting firm” (lobbyist group) that fronts for PepsiCo and Coca-Cola to oppose recycling laws. Again, the study is suspect, even as the GMA tries to hide the money trail again. FACT: The aforementioned Northridge Environmental Management Consultants, with the same bias issues, recycled the same talking points for Washington I-522 from 2013 for Proposition 105. Fool me once… LIE: : Proposition 105 would cost Colorado taxpayers millions, by requiring a new state bureaucracy to enforce its Colorado-only labeling regulations for tens of thousands of products at thousands of stores statewide.” FACT: The proposed costs are simply made up out of thin air, or one prefers, pulled out of an anatomical nether region. No new state bureaucracy would be required for enforcement as the enforcement falls under the current state Department of Public Health and Environment, which is an existing bureaucracy that already deals with food safety, including production, packaging, and transport. LIE: “Today, many grocery products include some ingredients derived from GE plant varieties, including vegetable oil made from modern varieties of soybeans, fructose from GE varieties of corn, or sugar derived from GE sugar beets. Importantly, most of these food ingredients don’t contain any GE content or material once they are processed for use in food products. Proposition 105 would require products made with any amount of these ingredients to be labeled as ‘genetically engineered’ – even if there is no amount of GMO content in the actual product.” FACT: While the production claim is true, the processing claim is false. Horizontal gene transfer occurs at the genetic chain DNA helix level, not at the higher molecular level. Their argument is that the molecular processing of the raw materials into finished products somehow removes that horizontal gene splicing, but neglects to mention if those gene are replaced with something else or nothing at all. The falsity of the argument is that it relies on public ignorance of genetics, because genetics doesn’t work that way! If processing does that, then the processing genetically mutates the food a SECOND time beyond the original genetic mutation of the horizontal gene transfer. If it does, then what else are they hiding from the consumer? Yet it doesn’t, because the spliced DNA remains. (Not that this has anything to do with labeling it, but they’re trying to justify no need for labels because they claim there is no difference between GMOs and non-GMOs, which doesn’t pass the blind sight test or common sense.) MISDIRECTION: “Modern GE foods are the most thoroughly tested foods ever added to our food supply, and they are deemed safe by the USDA, the FDA, the American Medical Association and major scientific and health organizations worldwide. The FDA has determined there is no nutritional or material difference between food ingredients made from GE plant varieties and their conventional counterparts. For this reason, the American Medical Association states there is no scientific justification for mandatory special labeling.” PATH CORRECTION: Whether this is true or not (it really isn’t; follow the money on who did the testing), it is irrelevant to Proposition 105. Reliance on the FDA when they are documented to be in cahoots with the GMO producers is disingenuous at best, crony corporatism at worst, and equivalent to saying the fox is calling the henhouse safe. Safety of GMOs is as irrelevant to labeling as it is to any other foodstuff, which requires their own labels. Pathogens like E.coli and carcinogenic herbicides and pesticides like glyphosate don’t care if their hosts are GMO or not. LIE: “Under our country’s existing nationwide labeling system, consumers who prefer to choose foods made without GE ingredients can already do so by simply buying products labeled ‘organic’ or ‘non- GMO.’ There are thousands of such products available in grocery stores across our state, so that consumers who prefer these foods have reliable options.” FACT: The “USDA Organic” label allows 38 non-organic ingredients and up to 5% of the total ingredients to be non-organic, so that label itself isn’t worth the ink it’s printed in. That’s the result of the Organic Foods Protection Act of 1990 and the loophole thrown in there by GMO lobbyists. IOW, the “nationwide labeling system” is FRAUDULENT! And they call that “reliable???” Furthermore, this is an argument presented in an either-or position of either organics or GMO, when in fact there is a third option in non-GMO conventional, so the argument fails from a lack of proper foundation. LIE: “Proposition 105’s complex system of requirements and exemptions would only apply to Colorado and would conflict with our existing nationwide standards for food labeling, including labels such as ‘organic’ and ‘non-GMO.’ For example, under Proposition 105, meat and dairy products would be exempt from labeling, even if they come from animals raised and fed on genetically engineered feed or injected with GE medications. This conflicts with existing national labeling standards for ‘organic’ and ‘non-GMO’ labels for these products.” FACT: No national standards are in conflict. Organic standards have their own separate set of standards that are not the same as GMOs or even conventional non-GMOs. If meat and dairy are exempt from labels even if they are fed GMO feed (which is true but unfortunate and reflective of poor wording of Proposition 105), that doesn’t make them organic because they don’t meet that standard and therefore there is no conflict. There is no national “non-GMO” labeling standard, either. It comes down to this: Vote YES on 105 to support honesty and transparency in your food supply, which can be accomplished even if the GMO Producers have to dragged kicking and screaming into it. Or, vote no on 105 and side with dishonesty, crony corporatism, lies, and fraud.
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 03:18:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015