Public Comment Period Ends Friday, April 27

Over 150 groups and more than 365,000 citizens from across the country are urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to reject a Dow Chemical application seeking approval of a controversial genetically engineered (GE) corn that is resistant to the hazardous herbicide 2,4-D. In addition to the public comments, 154 farm, environmental, health, fisheries groups and companies will submit a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack expressing their overwhelming opposition to this crop. The comments and letter will be submitted when USDA’s public comment period ends this Friday, April 27.

“American agriculture stands at a crossroads. One path leads to more intensive use of old and toxic pesticides, litigious disputes in farm country over drift-related crop injury, less crop diversity, increasingly intractable weeds, and sharply rising farmer production costs,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This is the path American agriculture will take with approval of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn, soybeans and the host of other new herbicide-resistant crops in the pipeline. Another path is possible, but embarking upon it will take enlightened leadership from USDA.”

According to agricultural scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook, widespread planting of 2,4-D resistant corn could trigger as much as a 30-fold increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade, given 2,4-D’s limited use on corn at present. Overall 2,4-D use in American agriculture would rise from 27 million lbs. today to over 100 million lbs. 2,4-D soybeans and cotton would boost usage still more. Yet USDA has provided no analysis of the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms that would result.

“It’s clear that this new generation of GE herbicide-resistant seeds is the growth engine of the pesticide industry’s sales and marketing strategy,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales.”

In addition, 48 medical and public health professionals have signed a letter to USDA warning of the severe health harms that would likely accompany the massive increase in 2,4-D use, expected to accompany approval of the GE seed. “Many studies show that 2,4 D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defects,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “USDA must take these significant risks seriously and reject approval of this crop.”

American farmers are also rightly concerned that the introduction of 2,4-D resistant corn will threaten their crops. 2,4-D drift is responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other herbicide. Last week, a coalition representing more than 2,000 farmers and groups filed petitions with the USDA and the EPA, asking USDA to conduct a thorough environmental review before making a decision on approving 2,4-D resistant corn and EPA to convene an advisory panel to examine impacts from increased application of the herbicides.

“Farmers are on the front lines of this potential chemical disaster,” said Iowa conventional corn and soybean farmer George Naylor. “Conventional farmers stand to lose crops while organic farmers will lose both crops and certification, resulting in an economic unraveling of already-stressed rural communities. I’m also very concerned about the further pollution of the air and water in my community.”

“USDA must stand up for those growing America’s food and put their interests, and the public’s, ahead of chemical companies’ profits,” added Margot McMillen, an organic farmer in Missouri. Hers is the message of farmers who are speaking on this issue today at a national telepress conference organized by the National Family Farm Coalition.

Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn is a clear indication that first-generation GE, herbicide-resistant crops—specifically Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) varieties—are rapidly failing. RR crops, which comprise 84 percent of world biotech plantings, have triggered massive use of glyphosate (Roundup’s active ingredient) and an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant “superweeds.”

Though Dow claims 2,4-D crops are the solution to weed resistance a recent peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious journal Bioscience concludes that these new GE crops will pour oil on the fire.  The study, entitled “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management,” suggests new GE crops will trigger an outbreak of still more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D.

2,4-D drift and runoff also pose serious risk for environmental harm.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service have found that 2,4-D is likely having adverse impacts on several endangered species, including the California red-legged frog, the Alameda whipsnake, and Pacific salmon, via impacts on their habitats and prey.

“EPA recently denied our petition to ban or control 2,4-D, putting their head in the sand instead of protecting people and plants,” said Mae Wu, a health attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “If USDA now grants Dow’s application, farmers, gardeners, wildlife, and kids will all face even greater exposure to this toxic herbicide.”

If approved, the Center for Food Safety has vowed to challenge USDA’s decision in court, as this novel GE crop provides no public benefit and will only cause serious harm to human health, the environment, and threaten American farms.

The groups submitting public comments to USDA include the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Food Democracy Now, the National Family Farm Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, the Organic Consumers Association, SumOfUs.org, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In addition to its member comments, CFS also filed legal and sciientific comments. View CFS Legal Comments; Science Comments; Science Comments II

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. More information can be found at www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN North America, or PANNA) works to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five PAN Regional Centers worldwide, we link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens’ action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society. More information can be found at www.panna.org

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. On the web at www.foodandwaterwatch.org

National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) unites the voices and actions of its diverse grassroots members to demand viable livelihoods for family farmers, fishers and workers, safe and healthy food, and economically and environmentally sound rural communities.www.nffc.net

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s purpose is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends. We work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life — air, land and water — and to defend endangered natural places. We seek to establish sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth as central ethical imperatives of human society. NRDC affirms the integral place of human beings in the environment. We strive to protect nature in ways that advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. We seek to break down the pattern of disproportionate environmental burdens borne by people of color and others who face social or economic inequities. Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth. On the web at www.nrdc.org

“Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ corn will trigger a large increase in 2,4-D use—and our exposure to this toxic herbicide—yet USDA has not assessed how much, nor analyzed the serious harm to human health, the environment, or neighboring farms,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.  “This novel corn will foster resistant weeds that require more toxic pesticides to kill, followed by more resistance and more pesticides—a chemical arms race in which the only winners are pesticide/biotechnology firms.”

If approved, millions of acres of “Agent Orange” corn could be planted as early as next year, raising concern for its adverse health impacts. 2,4-D was one of the main ingredients in Agent Orange, the chemical defoliant used by the U.S. in the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxins, a group of highly toxic chemical compounds, which are responsible for a host of serious medical conditions—from diabetes to cancer to birth defects—in Vietnam veterans as well as Vietnamese and their children.  Industry’s own tests show that 2,4-D is still contaminated with dioxins.

“Many studies show that 2,4 D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defects,” said Dr. Amy Dean, an internal medicine physician and President-Elect of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.  “Because it poses significant health risk, exposure should not be increased, but significantly reduced to protect the public’s health.”

2,4-D drift and runoff also pose serious risk for environmental harm.  Because it is such a potent plant-killer, 2,4-D can harm animals by killing the plants they depend on for habitat and food.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service have found that 2,4-D is likely having adverse impacts on several endangered species, even now.  2,4-D is currently used to control weeds primarily in cereal grains and lawns. Its use in corn has been extremely limited. USDA’s approval of 2,4-D resistant GE corn will increase the overall use of this toxic herbicide, worsening these impacts and likely placing many other species at risk.

American farmers are also rightly concerned that the introduction of 2,4-D resistant corn will threaten their crops: 2,4-D drift is responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other herbicide.  “In my experience, 2,4-D is an herbicide that can and does drift considerable distances to damage neighboring crops,” said Indiana farmer Troy Roush. “We can expect greatly increased use of 2,4-D with Dow’s new corn, and that could wreak havoc with soybeans, tomatoes, and other crops my neighbors and I grow.”

The advent of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn is a clear indication that first-generation genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant crops—Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) varieties—are rapidly failing.  RR crops, which comprise 84 percent of world biotech plantings, have triggered massive use of glyphosate (Roundup’s active ingredient) and an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds.  These resistant “superweeds” are regarded as one of the major challenges facing American agriculture.

Dow now falsely suggests that 2,4-D crops (2,4-D soybeans and cotton are also under development) are the solution to weed resistance.  Far from solving the problem, however, a peer-reviewed study recently published in the prestigious journal Bioscience, entitled “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management,” suggests that these new GE crops will pour oil on the fire, triggering an outbreak of still more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D.

USDA’s public comment period on 2,4-D resistant corn is open until April 27.

For more information on 2,4-D corn, see CFS’s two-page fact sheet and more extensive Food Safety Review.

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. More information can be found at www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Image courtesy of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (www.cban.ca)

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) welcomed reports that the University of Guelph, the Canadian university that developed the genetically engineered (GE) “Enviropig,” is closing down its research. CFS is now calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop any work on approving the GE pig.For years CFS has criticized the developers of the “EnviroPig” for engineering an animal specifically to fit into large-scale and highly polluting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  CFS has also criticized the genetically engineered “AquAdvantage” salmon developed by AquaBounty, Inc. – also under review by the FDA – which was similarly engineered to grow better in the confined tanks of industrial fish farming operations.

“There’s a lot of green lipstick on this pig,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “The whole idea of genetically engineering a pig to fit into an unsustainable production model and then dubbing it “enviro” is ridiculous. Given recent industry and consumer backlash, it’s no surprise that funding for this misguided research has dried up.”

The “Enviropig” was engineered using genetic material from a mouse and an E. coli bacterium to reduce phosphorus in the pig’s feces. The University of Guelph began its GE pig research in 1995 and requested food safety approval from regulatory authorities in Canada and the U.S. in 2009. While Canada approved reproduction of the GE pigs in February 2010, no government has approved the “Enviropig” for human consumption and no GE pigs have been sold commercially.

According to recent news reports, the Canadian hog industry group Ontario Pork has redirected its funding away from GE pig research. Lacking this funding, the university is ending its program to breed the genetically engineered pigs.

The announcement comes after years of mounting rejection by farmers, pork producers and consumers.  In a statement appearing in Reuters Canada yesterday, Paul Slomp of the National Farmers Union said, “[t]he GM pig was going to drive consumers away from eating pork if it was ever approved for market. This GM pig fiasco could have permanently damaged (Canada’s) domestic and international pork markets.”

Last year, Olymel, a pork processor in Quebec, announced it would not sell meat from Enviropigs even if the animals were approved for marketing. Other pork industry players are also leery of such biotech efforts. For example, the leading U.S. pork producer Smithfield Farms stated it would not sell meat from animal clones even with FDA approval, and that the company relies on traditional breeding.

“The U.S. government should quit wasting taxpayer dollars on what amounts to an engineered sham for the hog industry,” continued Kimbrell. “Consumers have made clear that they don’t want to eat genetically engineered animals. The FDA should stop its review of this GE pig immediately.”

Recent polls show that consumers do not want to eat these genetically engineered animals. An October 2010 poll by Thompson Reuters found that nearly 65 percent of consumers would not eat genetically engineered fish or meat and 93 percent consumers would want GE animals to be labeled if approved for consumption.

Support for GE labeling recently garnered media attention when a record-breaking one million public comments were sent to the FDA late last month in support of a legal petition filed by CFS calling on the agency to require the labeling of GE foods.  Fifty-five Members of Congress joined Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a letter to FDA in support of the legal petition.

###

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS currently represents 200,000 members across the nation. On the web at: www.centerforfoodsafety.org and www.truefoodnow.org

55 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS JOIN IN SUPPORT OF CENTER’S LEGAL PETITION

Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS or the Center) applauded the submission of a record-breaking one million public comments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods.  CFS filed the legal petition 180 days ago in October, 2011.  More than 450 organizations, businesses and associations came together to support the CFS legal action in the Just Label It Campaign.  Several Just Label It participants also joined the Center’s petition, and together, the groups collected and submitted over one million public comments to FDA demanding the agency label genetically engineered food.

At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat.  FDA currently requires over 3,000 other ingredients, additives, and processes to be labeled, but not transgenic ingredients.  “The public has spoken, loud and clear: FDA should require the labeling of genetically engineered foods,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.  “Providing basic information doesn’t confuse people, it empowers them to make informed choices.  Absent labeling, Americans are left in the dark, unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase GE foods.”

In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand—consistently near 95%—for the labeling of GE foods.  The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations. Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.  In the last year, thirty-six bills dealing with the labeling of genetically engineered foods have been introduced in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

Although there are very few engineered fruits and vegetables, transgenic varieties predominate in commodity crops: currently, the great majority of U.S. corn is genetically engineered, as is high percentages of soybeans, cotton, and sugar beets.  Approximately 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain GE ingredients.

The FDA,[i] USDA,[ii]  and EPA[iii] have never done any long-term human health nor environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops, despite the fact that FDA’s own scientists have concluded that these foods could pose serious risks[iv]. Laboratory and field evidence shows that GE crops can harm beneficial insects,[v] transfer GE genes to neighboring crops [vi] or wild relatives, and increase herbicide use, thereby generating intractable herbicide-resistant weeds [vii]. Many of the public comments focused on these health and environmental impacts.

CFS’s legal petition explains a myriad of scientific and legal grounds supporting the labeling of GE foods.  The current lack of any labeling makes GE foods misleading, in violation of FDA’s duties.  GE foods’ differences from conventional foods are underscored by the fact that they are patented for their novelty, yet they remain unlabeled.  GE crops have also shown they carry with them significant novel environmental harms, such as transgenic contamination of non-GE and wild crops, and massive increases in pesticide use.  Finally, the public’s underlying fundamental right to know what they eat and feed their families supports labeling.

In a 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not “materially” different from other foods.  In so doing the agency severely limited what it considered “material,” targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses.  This outdated standard—applying 19^th century oversight to 21^st century food—has no statutory basis and was created by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.

“Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “FDA’s two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked.  The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations’ citizens.”

Earlier this month CFS’s legal petition got some support from another important source—the U.S. Congress.  On March 12, 2012, a bicameral letter signed by 55 Members of Congress was sent to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.  The bipartisan letter was led by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and was supported by more than 70 businesses and organizations including Stonyfield Farm, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, the National Organic Coalition, Beanitos, Inc., Consumers Union, Organic Valley, PCC Natural Markets, the Organic Farming Research Foundation, and a number of farming and fishing associations.

Comments to FDA are still being collected on the Center’s website at www.centerforfoodsafety.org and www.truefoodnow.org

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS currently represents 200,000 members across the nation. On the web at: www.centerforfoodsafety.org and www.truefoodnow.org

In the U.S., we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations, we don’t have that choice when it comes to genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families.

The Center for Food Safety has filed a formal legal petition with FDA demanding that the agency require the labeling of GE foods. Now, we are spearheading a drive with over 460 other organizations in the Just Label It Campaign, to direct one million comments to the FDA in support of our petition. The comment period is set to close March 27^th and we’re less than 10,000 comments shy of our goal of one million comments. We need your help to reach it!

TAKE ACTION >>>

Today the Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, CREDO Action, SumOfUs, Center for Environmental Health, and Corporate Accountability International announced they have collected 463,681 petition signatures to date asking Walmart to refuse to stock Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) sweet corn. The coalition also announced a Day of Action on Saturday, March 17.

“Walmart is starting to feel the heat from consumers who don’t want this unlabeled GE corn in their grocery carts, so they are releasing public statements and telling customers that they have no current plans to carry the biotech corn,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “But until the retail giant sends a clear message to its supply chain that it will not buy this GE sweet corn, consumers have no way of knowing whether or not Walmart’s corn is GE free, and those of us who prefer to avoid GE food — including the half-million people who signed this petition — will purchase our groceries elsewhere.”

Public opinion polls done by Consumer Reports and others show that a majority of consumers asked would not eat genetically modified food and nearly all — 95 percent — are insistent that GE food must be labeled, at minimum, so they can make informed choices. As the country’s largest grocery retailer, Walmart sells $129 billion worth of food a year, giving it unmatched power in shaping the food supply chain. If Walmart refuses to stock Monsanto’s GE sweet corn, other retailers will likely follow suit and farmers won’t feel the economic pressure to plant the biotech seeds. To date, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods Market have indicated they will not sell the GE corn.

“Consumers around the world are calling on Walmart to reject Monsanto’s toxic crop. The last thing we need is another unlabeled, potentially unsafe GE product hiding in plain sight at the nation’s largest food retailer,” said Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, executive director and founder of SumOfUs.

“We hope that Walmart food buyers hear the more than 200,000 CREDO members encouraging them to take a stand for consumer choice and against Monsanto’s unlabeled GMO corn,” said Elijah Zarlin, campaign manager of CREDO Action. “Walmart’s stated commitment to customer safety and satisfaction will definitely be called into question if they carry this untested, unlabeled sweet corn – not even giving their customers the choice to avoid the product.”

“Grocery companies are the last link in the chain before this corn reaches consumers and they have a financial incentive to keep this unlabeled GE sweet corn off their shelves because their customers won’t buy it,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of The Center for Food Safety. “Two major retailers have already said they will not use Monsanto’s new corn. If they can do it, so can Walmart.”

“Walmart has been getting an earful from hundreds of thousands of Americans who don’t want risky genetic corn experiments,” said Charles Margulis, food program coordinator at the Center for Environmental Health. “This untested, unlabeled corn has no place on Walmart shelves. We expect swift action by the world’s largest retailer to protect their consumers’ right to safe food choices.”

On March 17, dozens of live events are being planned in communities across the country including New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa and California, as well as online social media actions targeting Walmart properties.

In addition to the nearly 500,000 petition signatures, the campaign that began on Jan. 11 has generated significant support from people across the country who are opposed to untested, unlabeled and potentially unsafe GE food. On Feb. 8, more than 3,300 phone calls were made to Walmart’s customer service line and between Feb. 22 and 23, Food & Water Watch activists delivered more than 75,000 petitions to more than 100 Walmart stores across the country.

###

SumOfUs.org is a global movement of consumers, investors, and workers all around the world, standing together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable and just path for our global economy.

CREDO Action has 2.7 million members across the U.S. who fight for progressive change and raise money for organizations like Food Democracy Now! and the Organic Consumers Association. Since 1985, CREDO and its membership have donated over $65 million to progressive causes. www.credoaction.org

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. The Center for Food Safety’s True Food Network is a national grassroots network with over 200,000 members where concerned citizens can voice their opinions about critical food safety issues, and advocate for a socially just, democratic, and sustainable food system. On the web at www.centerforfoodsafety.org and www.truefoodnow.org

The Center for Environmental Health protects people from toxic chemicals and promotes business products and practices that are safe for public health and the environment. www.ceh.org

Corporate Accountability International (formerly Infact) is a membership organization that has, for the last 35 years, successfully advanced campaigns protecting health, the environment and human rights. StopCorporateAbuse.org

In Only 6 Months, Already 850,000+ Public Comments To FDA In Support Of Labeling

This morning a bicameral letter signed by 55 Members of Congress was sent to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The bicameral, bipartisan letter led by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was written in support of a legal petition filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of the Just Label It campaign and its nearly 400 partner organizations and businesses; many health, consumer, environmental, and farming organizations, as well as food companies, are also signatories.  Since CFS filed the labeling petition in October 2011, the public has submitted over 850,000 comments in support of labeling.

“Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.  “FDA’s two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked.  The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations’ citizens.”

In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand—consistently near 95%—for the labeling of GE foods.  The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations.  Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.

In its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not “materially” different from other foods.  However, the agency severely limited what it considered “material” by targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses – applying 19th century science to the regulation of 21st century food technologies.  The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.

The Congressional letter to FDA states:

At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat…The agency currently requires over 3,000 other ingredients, additives, and processes to be labeled; providing basic information doesn’t confuse the public, it empowers them to make choices. Absent labeling, Americans are unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase GE foods…. We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world.

The 45 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join the letter are: Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Richard Hanna (NY-24), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), George Miller, (CA-7), Louise Slaughter(NY-28), Keith Ellison (MN-5), Raul Grijalva (AZ-7), Peter Welch (VT-At Large), Hansen Clarke (MI-13), Earl Blumenauer, (OR-3), Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), Anna Eshoo (CA-14), Sam Farr (CA-17), Maurice Hinchey (NY-22), Rush Holt (NJ-12), Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Jim McDermott WA-7), Madeleine Bordallo (GU-At Large), James Moran (VA-8), John Olver (MA-1), Jared Polis (CO-2), Charles Rangel (NY-15), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-1), Pete Stark (CA-13), Howard L. Berman (CA-28), Robert Brady (PA-1), David Cicilline (RI-1), Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11), Steve Cohen (TN-9), Dianne DeGette (CO-1), Bob Filner (CA-5), Barney Frank (MA-4), Luis Gutierrez (IL-4), Janice Hahn (CA-36), Michael Honda (CA-15), Barbara Lee (CA-9), Zoe Lofgren (CA-16), James McGovern (MA-3), Jan Schakowsky (IL-9), Jackie Speier (CA-12), John Tierney (MA-6), Melvin L. Watt (NC-12), Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), Maxine Waters (CA-35), and Grace Napolitano (CA-38).

The 10 Members of the U.S. Senate to join the letter are: Barbara Boxer (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Bernie Sanders (VT), Daniel Akaka (HI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Ron Wyden (OR), Mark Begich (AK), Jon Tester (MT), Richard Blumenthal (CT), and Jeff Merkley (OR).

The bicameral letter was supported by more than 70 businesses and organizations including Stonyfield Farm, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, the National Organic Coalition, Beanitos, Inc., Consumers Union, Organic Valley, PCC Natural Markets, the Organic Farming Research Foundation, and a number of farming and fishing associations.

The public comment period on the petition to label genetically engineered foods closes March 27th, 2012. Send your comment here.

# #  #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture.

We’ll be delivering these petitions signatures to Walmart by April 1st, so please sign the petition today!

In response, Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) and Representative Peter DeFazio (OR) have authored a bicameral Congressional letter in support of our legal petition and will be urging their fellow Members on Capitol Hill to sign onto their letter.

Please email your U.S. Senators and Representative and urge them to join the Boxer-DeFazio letter in support of labeling!

Today consumer groups Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union, and the Center for Food Safety submitted a formal petition asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify and evaluate AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage” genetically engineered (GE) salmon and all of its components as a food additive. The groups’ legal petition contends that the current agency review process that treats GE salmon only as a new animal drug is insufficient to protect public health, and that the agency is required by law to review the GE salmon under what should be a more rigorous process for any novel substance added to food.

“The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Aquabounty’s own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer.”

The groups warn that the potential health risks of GE salmon are no different from a number of food additives the FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing.

“FDA’s choice to allow the first proposed transgenic animal for food to somehow only be review as a drug is contrary to law, science and common sense,” said George Kimbrell, Senior Attorney for the Center for Food Safety.  “Public health and transparency should be championed, not skirted, particularly when contemplating such an unprecedented approval.”

In order to create the transgenic fish, Aquabounty genetically engineered an Atlantic salmon by inserting a Chinook salmon growth-hormone gene, as well as a gene sequence from an ocean pout. The company claims this engineering causes the GE salmon to undergo an increase in growth rate that allows the fish  to reach market size in half the normal time.

Aquabounty has submitted an application to FDA for approval of the transgenic salmon under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  Members of the FDA’s own advisory committee have described the agency’s review of the GE salmon under this process as lacking in rigor.

The consumer groups’ petition asserts that the process used to create the GE salmon substantially alters its composition—including its nutrition value—and demand that the fish and its components be treated as a food additive pursuant to FDA’s guidelines.  As a food additive, AquaBounty’s GE salmon would be considered unsafe for consumption unless the company’s data overwhelmingly proved otherwise.

“If FDA actually evaluated GE salmon as a food additive, including allergy-causing potential, they would not likely be able to approve it because of the health risks that have can already be seen in an incomplete set of data.” said Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union.

The groups assert that a proper review process would require GE salmon to undergo comprehensive toxicological studies, specifically those developed to ensure that foods entering the market are safe to consume and are properly labeled.

View the Petition

###

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS has over 200,000 members across the country and has worked on issues pertaining to genetically engineered fish since 2001.

Consumer Reports is the world’s largest independent product-testing organization. Using its more than 50
labs, auto test center, and survey research center, the nonprofit rates thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has over 8 million subscribers to its magazine, website, and other publications. Its advocacy division, Consumers Union, works for health reform, food and product safety, financial reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace.

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.