Blog Posts: Labeling

By Anna Ghosh

Thanks to Michael Pollan’s new book, there’s a lot of buzz right now about Americans’ meals being outsourced, but a connected and equally troubling trend – with even riskier food safety implications – is that Americans’ food is increasingly being imported from countries with abominable track records for food safety. And the country on the top of the list is China. 

This week, Food & Water Watch Assistant Director Patty Lovera testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats to discuss China as the leading producer of many foods Americans eat: apples, tomatoes, peaches, potatoes, garlic, seafood, processed food and food ingredients like xylitol and vitamin C.

Headlines about risky food from China have become all too common – melamine in milk, a chicken for beef swap, toxic juice, exploding watermelons (really, you can’t make this stuff up). Even our pets are threatened. Since 2007, chicken jerky treats imported from China are suspected to have caused more than 600 cases of canine illness and deaths to date.me

In her testimony, Patty explains how combining trade policy with a food safety regulatory system that’s not up to the job of dealing with the rising tide of imports is a recipe for disaster. She warns about the risks involved when cash-strapped agencies turn to third party certifiers (doubly outsourced), and how consumers’ only tool to be able to make informed decisions about where their food comes from – Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) – needs to be improved and expanded.

• Watch Patty’s testimony here (beginning at 00:55:00): http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-threat-china%E2%80%99s-unsafe-consumables
• Read Patty’s testimony (complete with charts and graphs) here: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/china_house_testimony_may_2013.pdf
• Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute also testified, which you can read more about here: http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/not-good-enough-for-pet-food/#more-8370
• Want more background about food imports from China? Read the report A Decade of Dangerous Food Imports from China

By Patty Lovera

Last week, you may have been puzzled by headlines about a new decision to end the use of the antibiotic tetracycline in organic apple and pear production. Since when are organic foods produced with antibiotics? Unbeknownst to most consumers, since the beginning of the USDA’s national organic program in 2002, apple and pear growers have been allowed to use the antibiotics tetracycline and streptomycin to treat a disease called fire blight on organic apple and pear trees.

Food & Water Watch worked with other consumer and environmental groups, and thousands of you who wrote comments to the National Organic Standards Board, to make sure they took a strong stand for public health and the integrity of the organic standards by rejecting an industry petition to allow the use of tetracycline until 2016.  We urged the Board to end the use of tetracycline as soon as possible in order to meet consumer expectations for organic and to respond to mounting evidence that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a serious threat to public health. Antibiotics are not allowed in any other types of organic food, including production of organic livestock.

At their meeting last week, the Board did reject the petition, which means that the use of tetracycline will not be allowed after October 21, 2014. But they also passed a resolution to encourage the USDA to investigate a transitional option for the emergency use of tetracycline until 2017. So we will be keeping an eye on that process, to make sure that if the USDA sets up an emergency use provision, that it is extremely limited, ends as soon as possible and, most importantly, that apples and pears from treated trees can not be sold as organic.

Even until 2014, when tetracycline will be phased out, organic apples are still a better choice than conventional. Organic growers can’t use synthetic pesticides or herbicides, genetically engineered crops (there is a GE apple variety in the approval pipeline), or sewage sludge on their fields; all practices which conventional orchards can use. And here are a couple of ideas for ways to find organic apples and pears produced without antibiotics:

• Look for apple and pear varieties that are less susceptible to fire blight, and less likely to need treatment. Beyond Pesticides has a list (and a great history of this issue.)   
• Look for apples and pears that are certified with both the USDA Organic and the EU organic seals. The organic standards in the European Union do not allow any use of antibiotics on fruit trees, so U.S. growers who export to the EU are not using the drugs on their orchards.

Stay tuned. We’ll be calling on you to help us make sure we keep the organic standards strong.

By Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe

Click to see a larger image.

Watching UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall testify to the UK Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ inquiry into horse meat contamination of the EU beef supply on March 5, I was struck again by the inconsistencies in the NFU approach when it comes to GM animal feed.

I have three questions for the NFU:

1) In his testimony, Mr. Kendall repeated the position that short supply chains are the answer to predictable control of our meat supply and regaining consumer confidence. How does this tally with the repeated insistence that UK livestock farmers need industrial GM feed from the Americas traded through complex international commodity markets?

Much is made about the allegedly dwindling availability of non-GM soy (known in the UK as soya), but the non-GM soya industry itself paints a rather different picture. On February 26, Augusto Freire, Managing Director of Cert-ID (a company certifying non-GM soya supplies), said, “20-25% of Brazilian soybean production is free from genetic modification for the 2012/13 crop. China’s and India’s soy production is 100% Non-GMO….Estimates for 2013 are strongly up compared to earlier years due to adoption of the CERT ID and ProTerra [non-GM certification] programs by new operators in Brazil, as well as increased demand in Europe.”

In the current climate, before supply and demand reduce the cost of non-GM feed, it may well be a bit more expensive per tonne, but according to our calculations if non-GM feed costs an extra £14/tonne (about $21.00), this works out to be a mere 3p/dozen eggs (about 5 cents). Mr. Kendall asks, “Are we going to produce chickens in this country that are non-GM, but buy them in from Asia because they are 20% cheaper and they are fed on GM [feed]?” Is he perhaps confusing feed costs with the poor animal husbandry that keeps meat from many non-European factory farms cheap?

We also need to be careful in working out how much animal feed is actually GM – any amount of GM feed comingled with an otherwise non-GM shipment means the entire quantity, and all subsequent feed bags, are labelled GM. This does not mean that feed is anything like 100% GM, and in fact the bulk of any animal feed is probably non-GM.

2) If, as Mr. Kendall says, UK farmers need “confidence” in the market to invest and improve UK beef production levels, why does this logic not apply to the farmers in Brazil already growing non-GM soya but unable to risk the costs of certification without confirmed advance orders from the EU to ensure they gets a return?

Augusto Freire notes, “An additional volume of Brazilian soy meal representing 1.5 million metric tonnes of soybeans could have been certified [as non-GM] if EU buyers had expressed their demand early in the year.” The non-GM soya is there, and more can be grown, we just need to say we want it. It’s not hard.

Consumer demand should boost confidence enough to take this step. A 2010 GfK/NOP poll showed fewer than 40% of supermarket shoppers were aware that imported GM animal feed fuels British factory farming, and 89% wanted these products to be clearly labelled. In January of this year the UK Food Standards Agency published research showing again that two-thirds of respondents want all use of GM feed to be labelled. Even among those undecided about GM food and crops respondents felt “some form of labelling should be in place to help them determine GM content and avoid choosing foods containing GM if they so wish”. Overall there is a clear indication this need to identify GM use applies to animal products in particular. People don’t want GM feed in the food chain, and they want clear labels to help them see where it is – or isn’t.

3) I completely agree that there is, as Mr. Kendall told the Committee, “too much focus on price” in the food industry. If this is the case, why are industrial crops feeding industrial megafarm production to produce cheap meat worthy of such vocal support?

True, there are vested interests on both sides of the discussion, and there are rumours that Indian soya is less desirable than Brazilian. Overall we’d be far better off moving away from the industrial meat model. Yet this does not explain why supermarkets can’t do their part in delivering what the market demands now by placing clear orders for non-GM soya (or non-GM fed products) to give Brazilian farmers the confidence they need to grow and certify non-GM crops. The NFU position invokes the market, but goes directly against the basics of supply and demand. The more non-GM feed is demanded, the more will be supplied, and the costs will come down—unless vested interests interfere with the market. Large supermarkets and dairies in other parts of Europe seem to be able to manage it, so it is very difficult to see why the UK is different.

Mr. Kendall told the NFU 2013 conference, “Today I want to talk about a pact with the great British consumer to get things changed…We now need supermarkets to stop scouring the world for the cheapest products they can find and start sourcing high quality, traceable, product from farmers here at home…That may mean more dedicated supply groups. It will certainly mean longer-term thinking and a shorter supply chain.” We agree, and we’re here to help.

Mr. Kendall, if you truly “Do not want food safety and standards to be politicised,” as you told the Committee, why do you say GM skepticism is “directly comparable to Nazi book-burning in the 1930’s”? Why do you not support your members in providing what the market clearly wants?

The situation with regard to GM animal feed looks increasingly like lucrative supply lines controlled by shippers and importers, not farmers, attempting to force an end to non-GM supplies on an unwilling market. The NFU position, which wedges farmers uncomfortably between their market and these vested interests, remains very difficult to understand. The sooner the NFU applies the logic it uses in the meat chain to the feed chain, the sooner consumers will begin to regain confidence in our food.

Mr. Kendall also told your 2013 conference consumers should demand answers from the people they buy from. We agree European consumers can and should get what they want.

This action is a good first step.

Volunteers in the field reach out to their fellow community members.

By Lynna Kaucheck

Floridians from Tallahassee to Miami have rallied in support of labeling genetically engineered (GE) food. Since Food & Water Watch hit the ground in Florida at the end of August, our allies and activists have helped generate over 8,000 petition signatures, over 2,000 emails and nearly 500 calls to key lawmakers. In addition, over 220 businesses and organizations from around the state have joined us in signing a letter to lawmakers, asking them to support labeling GE food in Florida, including Global Organics, Sierra Club Florida Chapter, Florida Farmworkers Association, Florida Right to Know, and Sunshine State Interfaith Power and Light.

Our “Let Me Decide” team is working hard to label GE food in Florida and we’re growing every day. We have solid local groups working in four communities and we’re focused on developing two more. The local groups are run by strategic and passionate volunteers that are out in the community educating people about the issue. They organize educational forums, community dinners and activist trainings, and are instrumental in growing the movement to support labeling.

And all the hard work is paying off! On March 1, GE labeling bills were introduced in both the Florida House and Senate. Representative Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda introduced HB 1233 and Senator Maria Lorts Sachs introduced S 1728.  The whole “Let Me Decide” team in Florida applauds these lawmakers for their leadership on this important issue.

Floridians, like concerned citizens everywhere, want to know what’s in the food their feeding their families and how that food was produced. And labeling food is nothing new to folks in Florida, as they were one of the first states to pass country of origin labeling back in 1979.

When we sit down at the dinner table at night, we want to know that the food we’re eating wasn’t grown in a way that put a family farmer out of business, that it didn’t poison the land that it grew from or the farmworker that helped get it to our table. We want to know that the food that sustains us isn’t also harming us. Above all, we deserve to be able to make informed decisions about the food we buy.

This year’s legislative session runs March 5 – May 3, so we have just 10 short weeks to make something happen. But we’ve built army of activists and allies and we’re ready to fight to make GE labeling the law in Florida. Join us!

Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/FWWFlorida

FWW’s Alison Auciello, left, and Ariel Miller speak about the importance of GE food labels at the annual Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) conference.

By Alison Auciello

There’s been a flurry of activity in the Ohio “Let Me Decide” campaign. From Cleveland to Granville to Cincinnati, Ohioans are pushing for nationwide labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. 

On Feb. 15, we met with Cleveland Councilmembers Joseph Cimperman and Matt Zone, asking them to sponsor a resolution to pressure the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and federal legislators to mandate labeling of GE foods. The council members are excited to be working with us and are committed to bringing the resolution before the Cleveland City Council. Should Cleveland pass the resolution, they will become the second city in Ohio to call for GE labeling, following the lead of Cincinnati, which unanimously passed the resolution last November. We will continue our efforts to pass similar resolutions in Ohio and call on Senator Sherrod Brown to work toward national legislation for GE labeling.

On Feb. 16 and 17, we attended the 34^th annual Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) conference; Ohio’s largest on sustainable food and farming. We were invited to present a workshop on the campaign to label genetically engineered foods in collaboration with Ariel Miller, an activist working with OEFFA to organize support for a national mandate to label GE food. Our presentation included an overview of genetically engineered foods – the health and environmental impacts of GE foods, myths perpetuated by biotech companies like Monsanto – and the campaign to label GE food.

Judging from the questions Ariel and I got, the farmers and good food advocates are not only supportive of GE labeling, they want to make sure their farms aren’t contaminated with genetic material from neighboring farms. Contamination is a big concern for farmers here in Ohio and across the country, who fear Monsanto could potentially bring lawsuits against them for the possession of their patented genetic material. OEFFA has joined in the lawsuit to protect farmers against this type of intimidation from Big Agribusiness.

Throughout the conference, workshop speakers tied in their own issues to the problems presented by GE foods to the work they are doing, from sustainable farming practices to bringing whole, healthy foods from farm to plate. Farmers, advocates, and consumers alike vowed to keep GE foods off their farms, out of their businesses, and off their plates. A Food & Water Watch partner on food issues and fracking, Mo Tressler from All Things Food in Bryan, OH, stressed in her workshop how important the connection is between the farmer and the consumer. From her perspective, not only should we know what’s in our food, we should know and support our local farmers.

Warren Taylor, of Snowville Creamery, calls for nothing short of a revolution to take on the corporate control of our food system and democracy. He says that if we want to change the policies that perpetuate corporate subversion of our democracy, we’ve all got to throw our hat in the ring! How will you get involved? Follow Food & Water Watch’s Ohio on Facebook and join us in our campaign to make GE labeling the law.

Assembly Members Linda Stender and David Wolfe with GE Labeling activists (FWW’s Jim Walsh back left) at the New Jersey Statehouse

By Seth Gladstone

Of the many busy days at the New Jersey Statehouse in Trenton, February 21 stood out. Legislators and hurried staffers weaved through the crowded hallways from committee hearings to caucus meetings and back. Lobbyists and reporters moved from hushed conversations to new hushed conversations. And activists devoted to causes ranging from gun control to education reform to Lou Gehrig’s Disease gathered in meeting rooms and offices to press their cases with lawmakers.

But perhaps the broadest and most diverse group of activists at the Statehouse that day were gathered for a single, united cause: the launch of a statewide campaign seeking legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in New Jersey. Along with Food & Water Watch, a mix of activists and advocates from environmental, labor, health, student, farming, faith and business organizations were joined to tell legislators and the press, “Let me decide” when it comes to GE foods.

“Over the years, consumers have fought for labeling of calorie counts, fat content and ingredients lists so they can make smarter, healthier choices for their families,” said Jim Walsh, Food & Water Watch’s Eastern Region Director. “But as food production technology evolves, so should our food labeling. Consumers have a right to know which products on market shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients. In short, let us decide.”

Amanda Nesheiwat, a student leader with NJ Sustainable Collegiate Partners, echoed Jim’s sentiment. “Just as we label food with allergy warnings, we should label GE foods. The health risks tied to GE foods are reason enough not to give corporations the power to dictate the decisions that consumers should be able to make on their own,” she said.

 Joining the activists at the Statehouse were two state legislators representing two different political parties, both pledging their commitment to do all they could among their peers to move GE labeling legislation in the coming weeks and months. Assembly Members David Wolfe (R) and Linda Stender (D) both spoke passionately about their own personal motivations – family health, constituency health, and community health – for working hard to make a GE labeling law a reality in New Jersey.

 On a busy day at the Statehouse, optimism ran strong that New Jersey might become the first state in the union to label genetically engineered foods. The campaign marches on.

By Nisha Swinton

Supporters of the “Right to Know GMO CT” coalition united at the Legislative Office Building on Feb. 8 to ask the Connecticut General Assembly a candid question: Are you standing up for consumers’ rights to know whether or not the food they eat and feed their families with has been genetically engineered?
 
Food & Water Watch is excited to support the great work and grassroots power that GMO-free CT has initiated to pass groundbreaking legislation to label genetically engineered foods in Connecticut. The growing Connecticut Coalition includes GMO-Free CT, NOFA CT, Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and many others – over 100 local, state and national organizations who are committed to ensuring Connecticut consumers know whether their foods are genetically engineered. Over the past few weeks alone, 109 businesses and organizations across the state have joined the coalition, 180 residents have attended campaign action meetings, and grassroots leaders have scheduled over 20 educational events around the state (for a full events listings visit: see www.gmofreect.org).

The vast majority of processed foods contain GE ingredients, which are largely untested, unlabeled, and potentially unsafe. Unfortunately, far too many American consumers remain clueless about whether or not their food is genetically engineered, but Connecticut residents are sharp, informed, driven and refuse to sit back in silence when it comes to demanding that GE food be labeled. Perhaps the most critical action we can take right now towards creating and sustaining an honest food system is to label GE foods. Once these foods are labeled, all consumers – regardless of where their live or how much money they make – become empowered with the knowledge to choose safety over processed chemicals.
 
“As someone who has lived in the Hartford area all of my life and worked as a reporter for several of the state’s newspapers, I am keenly aware of the sophistication and intelligence among Connecticut residents. I have faith that business owners, residents and coalition allies will not stop fighting until they know for certain that GE food labeling will become a way of life,” says Joanna Smiley, Food & Water Watch Public Relations Volunteer.
 
Rep. Phil Miller, D-Essex, and Diana Urban, D- North Stonington, in separate committees, introduced a bill to label GE foods, which is currently in the revisor’s office. Next steps and the exact timeframe is still to be determined, but we will keep building public support and awareness for the bill.

This Pike’s Place Market employee makes a good point – this is why Governor Inslee and Washington state legislators need to support the People’s Right to Know Initiative.

By Julia DeGraw

Food & Water Watch is proud to work on the “Label It WA” campaign to pass a genetically engineered food labeling law (I-522) in Washington State. Citizens deserve the right to know what’s in their food and it appears that Washington could lead the way in being the first state to pass a GE food labeling law.

Our field campaign is off to a great start. With our allies including Label It Washington and Seattle Tilth, we are laying the groundwork for victory. We hosted five days of action throughout the state collecting photo petitions from locations like the iconic Pike Place Market, University of Washington Vancouver and the Main Market Coop in Spokane. GE Food Labeling volunteers are having fun as they build this historic campaign in Washington.

On January 31, Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman certified the signatures that will ensure that I-522, “The Peoples right to know Genetically Engineered Food Act” will either be voted into law by the legislature or go to the ballot for public vote this November. On Feb. 14, the state legislature held a public hearing on the initiative, which was well attended with supporters of the initiative. From the hearing, it seems most likely that the legislature will choose to let the initiative go to a popular vote.

Kids in Seattle support I-522 to make GE food labels the law.

With the help of our volunteers we are well on our way to reaching our goal of 5,000 petition signatures calling on state legislators and Governor Inslee to endorse The Peoples Right to Know Initiative. Our Washington Organizers have also garnered endorsements from several Washington businesses and groups such as Dog Mountain Farm, and Lazy R Ranch who will also help pressure the state’s leaders to support labeling GE food in Washington.  We are making great progress but our job is not done. All of our voices need to be heard. If you also agree that we have the right to know what’s in our food please ‘like’ us on our Food & Water Watch—Washington Facebook page to join our campaign to help pass I-522 this November.

By Sam Bernhardt

FWW’s Sam Bernhardt and members of GMO Free PA coalition at the PASA conference on Feb. 8, 2013.

People across Pennsylvania are fired up about holding big agribusiness accountable and giving consumers access to basic information about the food they are buying and eating through the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food.

Pennsylvanians care about our farmers and labeling GE food means fighting back against the growing control of corporations like Monsanto, giving power back to farmers around the state. Agriculture is our state’s largest economy, with $5.7 billion in sales each year. And the strength of this industry isn’t just from a few behemoths: our state has over 63,000 farms, growing a wide range of produce. My personal favorite is Kennet Square, the mushroom capital of the world and home to the annual Mushroom Festival. Read the full article…

By Eleanor Bravo

After working with allies throughout the state, we were pleased when, in December 2012, New Mexico Senator Peter Wirth pre-filed a proposed amendment to the New Mexico Food Act to require the labeling of genetically engineered food and feed. In just a few weeks, Food & Water Watch and its allies, including La Montañita Co-op, Ole NM, Occupy New Mexico, Edible Santa Fe, Louie Hena of the Tesuque Puebo and Clarissa Duran, member of Seedsavers successfully drummed up grassroots support for Senate Bill 18 with more than 500 petition signatures and an event at the State Capitol Roundhouse widely covered by the press. Read the full article…