GMOs: Food fight becomes war of words

The Savvy Shopper

By Bob Gaydos

The non-GMO label is showing up
 on more food products.

The most contentious food-fight on the planet has been transformed into a war of words. Actually, letters. Three of them: GMO. They stand for genetically modified organism.

The battle is being waged in Congress, state legislatures and via social media. The question -- whether food producers should be required to put those three letters on labels of products that have been genetically modified.

Boiled down, the argument goes like this:

• Producers of genetically modified seeds and companies that use GMOs in the foods they produce say extensive scientific research has shown the food to be as nutritious as non-GMO foods and safe for human and non-human consumption, so there is no need to label them.
• A diverse coalition, which includes organic farmers, scientists, doctors, Consumers Union, community organizations, and a host of internet sites devoted to nutrition, healthful eating, food safety, and the public’s right to know, say GMO science is still too new to be decreed safe in the long term. Besides, they ask, if it’s safe, why not give consumers a conscious choice in what they eat by labeling genetically modified food?

A lot of money has been spent lobbying members of Congress to  

oppose mandatory labeling of GMOS, and even to prohibit farmers from suing Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds, over its requirement that farmers buy new GMO seeds from the company every year. Last year, the House of Representatives passed what labeling proponents dubbed the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act). Local Reps. Sean Maloney, D-18th District, and Chris Gibson, R-19th District, both opposed the bill, which would have preempted a state’s right to require labeling of GMOs. However, under pressure in December to get a budget bill passed to avoid another government shutdown, the House did not include the GMO measure in its final omnibus budget bill. With the Senate also approving the budget bill and President Obama signing it into law, advocates of GMO labeling took this as a victory in the ongoing battle.

In yet another victory for the advocates of mandatory labeling, Campbell Soups, a major food company, recently announced it would no longer oppose such labeling, It said it has withdrawn from the food industry campaign for voluntary labeling and is urging a national standard, to avoid confusion for consumers. CEO Denise Morrison said the company is not “disputing the science of GMOs or their safety.” But, she added, GMOS have become a major issue with consumers and, “We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.” She said if a federal standard isn’t established “in a reasonable amount of time,” Campbell’s would begin labeling its own products, which include Pepperidge Farm, Prego, Swanson and SpaghettiOs.

Meanwhile, the legal status quo remains and states are free to pass laws requiring labeling of GMO foods. Vermont is the only state to have enacted such a law. Maine and Connecticut have passed similar laws that go into effect when enough neighboring states do likewise. Vermont’s law is scheduled to go into effect in July. Labeling laws are currently being considered in many other states and the issue is also far from dead in Congress.

So, what’s a health-conscious, label-reading shopper to do in the meantime when the label may be no help on GMOs? For one thing, get enough information about the subject. That can help make for more-informed choices at the supermarket or farmer’s market, no matter what the politicians do. The following may help.

• What are GMOS? GMOs are seeds whose genes have been altered in a laboratory to change certain properties. Generally, proponents of GMOs say they are more resistant to extreme weather and pesticides, are able to produce a higher yield in smaller acreage and have a longer shelf life. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a GMO apple that supposedly won’t turn brown when sliced and a potato that resists bruising. These are not in wide use. (The FDA also recently approved a GMO salmon. See sidebar.) Opponents say they are concerned about GMOs contaminating nearby conventional crops or posing serious health problems since they contain the chemical pesticide to which they have been made resistant. They also say GMOs allow for wider use of pesticide spraying of crops.
• How much of our food is genetically modified? Lots. Maybe 90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified. Other major GMO crops are cotton, squash, canola, papaya and sugar beets. Since several of these crops are common ingredients in packaged foods, it’s estimated that 75 percent or more of processed food products in the U.S. contain GMOs. More food companies have begun to voluntarily include “Non-GMO” or other similar information on their labels.
• Do other countries require labeling of GMO foods? Yes. Australia, Russia, most of Europe, Iceland, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have stringent labeling laws, according to the Center for Food Safety. Others that have labeling requirements include  Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa and South Korea.
• How do I tell what’s true about GMOs and what’s not if I check on the Internet? Good luck. This debate changes every day, with major corporations spending millions of dollars in advertising, lobbying and research grants to scientists to bolster their arguments and organic food organizations and consumer groups spending considerably less money, but no less energy, in an effort to counter them. This is why labeling has become the focal point of the controversy.  

Maire Ullrich is the go-to GMO person at Cornell Cooperative Extension in Middletown, N.Y. As agriculture program leader, she offers interested groups a 40-60 minute talk on GMOs. She says the agency takes no position on GMOs. “There’s no good data that says it’s not safe,” she says, “but you still have a choice to be an educated consumer. People need to be really wise to the back of the package, not just read the labels on the front” if they want to know what they’re eating,

For example, she cited a product label boasting of non-GMO oil. But that oil was only 5 percent of the oil in the can. The other 95 percent was canola, which was modified.

Ullrich says most of the produce at local stores and farmers markets is non-GMO (“there are no GMO onions”) because of “the pushback from consumers.” She says farmers are more reluctant to grow GM crops. “Of course, if it’s labeled organic, you know it’s not GMO.”

“Part of what I teach is that if you want to use labels, you have to be scientific in your argument,” she says. “Is it your right to know growing practices and ingredients? Argue for consumer knowledge and transparency. If you don’t like the economics behind GMOs, it’s OK to say so.”

As for that GMO potato, “It’s been an abject failure,” she says. “McDonald’s wouldn’t buy it.” The non-bruising GMO apple? Ullrich says, “If McDonald’s won’t buy a GMO potato, do you think they’ll buy a GMO apple for a kiddie meal?” Both will wind up being processed for other, less obvious, uses.

Meanwhile, the food fight continues.

Bob Gaydos is a freelance writer. He can be reached at rjgaydos@gmail.com

Is it really a salmon?

The $1.1 trillion budget bill passed by Congress in December also contained another significant victory for proponents of GMO labeling. In it, Congress instructed the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the sale of GMO salmon until the agency creates labeling guidelines and a program to disclose to consumers whether a fish has been genetically altered. The FDA in November approved salmon as the first genetically modified animal safe for human consumption. It required no labeling of the Atlantic salmon produced by AquAdvantage.

The salmon contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout. The modification reduces the time required for the fish to grow large enough for consumption to 18 months instead of the usual three years. The fish is also considerably larger than the average salmon.

Critics of the product and commercial fisherman raise the same questions posed about GMO vegetables and fruits: Is the fish safe to eat and what might happen if the fish escapes from its breeding tanks into the environment and mates with wild salmon?

AquAdvantage says the fish are safe to eat, are all sterile females and its land-based breeding areas are secure.

While it is unclear when the fish might be ready for sale, some food chains, including Whole Foods, Target, Trader Joe’s and Aldi, have said they will not sell it. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who fought for the labeling language, said, "There's a question as to whether this fish should even be called a salmon. The FDA made no mandatory labeling requirement. Instead, they said it could be labeled voluntarily. But no manufacturer of a 'Frankenfish' is going to label it as such. ... At least now people will have the opportunity, the chance, to know what it is that they are purchasing."

More info

To schedule a talk on GMOs, Maire Ullrich, agriculture program leader at Cornell Cooperative Extension, Orange County, can be reached at:

-- mru2@cornell.edu

-- (845) 344-1234

Iowa eccentricities: Heads I win, Bernie, tails you lose

By Bob Gaydos

Bernie Sanders

Three questions in the wake of whatever it was that just happened in Iowa:

• Can anyone -- preferably a Democrat -- tell me what Hillary Clinton stands for? In other words, what is her message?
• Why do mainstream media assume there's no way Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, never mind the presidency?
• Since when does winning an election, or caucus or whatever else you may call it depend on the flip of a coin?

Let's start with Hillary. As far as I can tell, after 16 years (at least) of running for president, the only message I still hear is that Hillary should be president because she's been around, she wants it and it's her turn. She's been patient through Bill's years in the White House and she's been running ever since they had to vacate (penniless, I believe she initially claimed).

Yes, she took time to serve as senator from New York, but that really was necessary to fill out the resume for a presidential run. Being secretary of state was a bittersweet consolation prize for losing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, who apparently never got the memo that it was Hillary's turn to run. It certainly topped off her resume.

Yet all I hear is that she's really smart, has a lot of experience, knows a lot of stuff and will do a good job of running things. Now, that's clearly more than can be said of pretty much all of the Republican presidential candidates, but she's not running against any of them yet.What is she going to do as president? What is she going to change about a system with which Americans of all political persuasions are disenchanted, to say the least? Maybe it's me, but all I hear is that she'll do a good job, even a better job, of managing what Obama leaves behind.

A lot of the major media seem to have bought into this message. That was pretty much the essence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the Iowa primary. Hillary has the experience to carry on the way we have been carrying on.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the New York Times, and other establishment media that support her candidacy, a lot of Americans don't seem to want to carry on the way we've been carrying on. That's undoubtedly why a lot of young people, not thrilled with the future being crafted for them, have flocked to the Sanders candidacy.

In fact, it seems to be why a lot of people have flocked to a host of Republican candidates who are anything but establishment figures. The fact that virtually all of them aren't qualified to be president is another matter.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has done a pretty good job cleaning up the mess left by Bush/Cheney. He's done this in the face of non-stop resistance from Republicans from his first day in office. There's no reason to believe that Clinton, no favorite of congressional Republicans, will have any easier time of it in that regard. Furthermore, her ties to the banking industry and corporate America (through Bill and the Clinton Foundation), cast serious doubt on any claim she might make that she is different from Republicans. (Her claim the other night that she is not part of the Democratic Establishment is laughable.)

And, as I recall, she couldn't get her healthcare plan through a Democratic Congress in Bill's first term. How does that make her a manager who "gets things done"? It's a claim that much of major media have apparently accepted as fact because she and her supporters keep saying it: 

Why Hillary? Because she's a manager.

Sanders, by contrast, is an "eccentric" senator with "unruly" hair, as he was characterized in an Associated Press story the morning after the Iowa caucus. This was supposedly a straight news story reporting on the outcome of the caucus. There were no adjectives attached to Clinton's name implying some not-so-subtle judgment. Where were the editors?

Again, maybe it's just me, but when someone writing in Iowa describes Sanders, with a lifetime in public service, as "eccentric," I can't help but wonder if it's code for 74-year-old Jew who still speaks with the accent of his native Brooklyn. New Yorkers are pretty good at cracking codes.

As for that Iowa vote, what a joke. Clinton claimed victory after edging Sanders by less than three-tenths of a point. Democrats don't even vote privately in Iowa. They stand in opposite corners and try to convince others to join them. The biggest group gets the delegates from that district. When there's a tie, they split the delegates -- two for you, two for you. But when there's an odd number of delegate at stake, the odd vote is awarded by flipping a coin. Clinton won six out of six flips -- go figure -- so she got a couple more delegates than Sanders. That is no smashing victory!

Even here, major media (NPR even) felt it necessary to weigh in after the fact to educate us that Clinton didn't win Iowa on coin flips. Rather, they spelled out the entire ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated system by which Iowa Democrats award convention delegates. Seems there's county delegates and state delegates and who-the-heck cares delegates and formulas for calculating percentage of delegates. It's a system set up by the establishment to try to control the votes, so that candidates like Bernie Sanders, from Brooklyn via Vermont, can't win.

But he did. The "virtual tie" was a statement for Sanders against the establishment -- Democratic Party and major media.

My humble recommendations:

• For Clinton: Figure out what you really stand for and tell us. If you think you have to be a shill for banks and corporations in order to be effective as president, tell us why. At least it would be honest.
• For the major media: Listen and report the facts. Ask questions about real issues. Stop with the horse-race reporting based on polls. Do your job.
• Iowa Democrats: Have a simple vote, privately, for convention delegates. No coin flips. In case of ties, split the baby, as Solomon said. In this case, it works.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Hillary, beware the cloak of inevitability

By Bob Gaydos

Hillary Clinton

Having been dragged into the 2016 presidential debate a year early by the unexpected candidacy of George Pataki, I feel obliged to acknowledge the presidential ambitions of another "New Yorker," Hillary Clinton.

Unlike Pataki, a Republican who carries the baggage of a man looking for a political party to support his aspirations, Clinton has long worn the cloak of inevitability as the Democrats’ likely candidate in 2016.

She may not want to get too comfortable with this bit of political apparel.

History suggests why. In 2008, the so-called conventional wisdom made Clinton a heavy favorite to capture her party’s nomination. All she had to do, it was suggested, was relax and let nature takes its course. After all, she had a well-respected Bill by her side in a reversal of roles, all the money they had amassed since he left the White House, a long list of wealthy Democratic donors and she had even won an election to become New York’s junior senator.

What more did she need?

As it turned out, a few things: 1.) a populist message with which voters could identify; 2.) a campaign persona that projected sincerity, clarity, energy and the possibility of real change; 3.) a little warmth; and 4.) a way to defeat Barack Obama, who, it turns out, had plenty of the first three.

In 2008, the inevitable was overcome by the unexpected.

Enter Bernie Sanders, 2015. The conventional wisdom -- and even major news media, who should know better -- are writing him off as an eccentric, under-funded, liberal -- socialist even -- senator from a small, New England state.

All of which is true, except for the eccentric part.

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. Unlike most of the Republican presidential candidates, he is no crackpot. He has a dedicated -- and rapidly growing -- constituency, fueled by the most synergistic form of communication yet created by man -- social media.

In 2008, Barack Obama had it. In 2015, Bernie Sanders has it in spades. Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites offer a non-stop, 24/7 recitation of Sanders’ positions on issues that resonate with so-called average Americans:

Protect Social Security and Medicare. Don’t raise the retirement age. Raise the minimum wage. Decrease the wealth gap by taxing the rich more. Overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allows the super-rich to control elections. Fight global warming. Make college affordable, not a road to lifelong debt. Rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

Furthermore, Sanders recently introduced legislation that strikes at the heart of Republicans’ so-called dedication to family values. His Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would guarantee 10 paid days of vacation for employees who have worked for an employer for at least a year. Sanders is also co-sponsoring, with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, The FAMILY Act, which allows 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. This could be used to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill family member or to deal with serious medical conditions. Republicans are nowhere on this.

Sanders has also publicly criticized Clinton for not taking any position on President Obama’s TPP trade act, which Sanders has strongly opposed for its lack of transparency and a provision sidestepping congressional approval of new agreements.

This is not the agenda of a crackpot.

One of the knocks on Clinton has always been that she seems to feel entitled, that she should get people’s votes just because she is Hillary. That she should be New York’s senator just because. That she should be the first woman president of the United States just because.

Perhaps prompted by Sanders’ energetic campaign, which is drawing crowds and money to his cause, Clinton has called for universal voter registration -- a knock at the numerous Republican efforts to limit voting rights in the name of fighting voter fraud, a phony issue. It’s a populist issue, but not one on the front burner.

Mostly, her campaign seems to be focusing on setting up a coast-to-coast organization to recruit workers and attract votes and money for the campaign against whoever the Republican candidate may be. That’s because the Clinton team doesn’t expect much of a challenge from Sanders or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination.

O’Malley is also no dunderhead. He would shine among the GOP field of dreamers. Like Sanders, he has an air of believability. Sure, it takes a lot of ego to run for president, but beyond the ego -- even the sense of entitlement -- many voters like to feel the person who gets their vote really means what he or she says and will work like hell to make it happen.

Then-Sen. Obama projected that in 2008. Young voters, women and minorities especially rallied to his side. In 2012, he had a record that was strong enough to validate that commitment one more time.

So the question is, what would a second president Clinton stand for? Would Hillary be a second coming of Bill? In some ways, that might not be bad, given his management of the economy. But Hillary is no Bill, at least when it comes to campaigning. She can’t realistically change her personality, but she can articulate some views that demonstrate an awareness of the issues of concern to many Americans. Sanders has spoken on some, but women’s issues appear to be there for Clinton to claim. Also bias. Immigration. And she needs to challenge Sanders on the others if she disagrees with him.

Like any Democratic candidate, she enjoys the luxury of not having to appease the ignorati of the right, who distrust science, detest non-Christians, deny evolution and dismiss the poor. She is free to say what she really believes and, if it is in line with Democratic Party principles, she can do so without fear of losing primary votes. But she’ll need to take that comfortable cloak of entitlement off and show that she’s interested in more than wooing major campaign donors and renovating the family quarters in the White House.

Why does she want to be president?

Clinton has said, much to her regret, that she and Bill were broke when they left the White House. No one believed her, but, good for them, that’s apparently not a problem anymore. Her problem appears to be that every time she sets her sights on the Oval Office, some man gets in the way. First Bill, then Barack … now Bernie? B-ware, Hillary.

 

bobgaydos.blogspot.com