Voluntary 'Smart Label' Preempts State and Consumer Rights by Dr. Mercola
July 05, 2016|122,583views
Spread the Word to
By Dr. Mercola
According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), 80 percent
of the foods on your grocery store's shelves contain genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).1 These foods are also most likely to be contaminated with toxic pesticide residues.
Just last month, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) sued Post
Holdings, Inc., for falsely marketing Shredded Wheat cereal as "100
percent natural" and "made with nothing but goodness," after independent
testing found it contained glyphosate2 — hardly what health-conscious consumers would expect.
Alas, while Americans are getting savvier when it comes to making
healthier food choices, and recent polling shows that 9 out of 10
Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered (GE),3 big business has successfully usurped power, and politicians have by and large abandoned their constituents.
State and Consumer Rights Under Attack Yet Again
Senate negotiators have now made a deal4 to create a national labeling standard for GMOs using voluntary "Smart Labels" (so-called QR codes5)
rather than clear labeling — a deal that goes against the 88 percent of
Americans who have said NO to being forced to use a smartphone app to
find this important information.
The new bill, S. 2609, would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 with a national bioengineered food disclosure standard.6,7 As noted in a June 23 newsletter by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA):
"It's hard to know which is worse. The corporations that profit from
poisoning your food and water. Or the politicians who will happily sell
you down the river for a few campaign contributions.
Today, our 'leaders' in the U.S. Senate proudly announced that they've 'reached a deal' on a federal GMO labeling bill.
No matter how they spin it — and they will spin it — this
'compromise' is nothing more than a handout to Monsanto, an
industry-brokered deal intended to legally sanction the right of
corporations to deceive you, the consumer."
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS)
has called the bill a "blow to to the food movement and America's right
to know," adding it is "in many ways worse than prior iterations of the
DARK Act that were defeated — it is a blank check for biotech."8
Roberts-Stabenow Deal Tramples Your Rights to Save Biotech Industry
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie
Stabenow have spent months secretly negotiating this deal which will
nullify Vermont's GMO labeling requirement (which officially went into
effect July 1) after the fact.
The legislation would also bar any other state from enacting GMO
labeling requirements that differ from the national standard, and delays
the disclosure requirement another two years — three years for smaller
food companies. As reported by AgriPulse:9
"Under the legislation, most food companies would have the option of
disclosing GMO ingredients through either a digital smartphone code,
the industry's preference, or through an on-package symbol or language
that the Agriculture Department would approve.
The code would be accompanied by: 'Scan here for more food
information.' Small companies would have the option of putting a phone
number or website URL on labels instead of the digital code ...
Roberts said the disclosure system would protect biotech products
from being denigrated by opponents. 'We saved agricultural
biotechnology,' said Roberts."
Legislation Redefines Bioengineering to Exempt Most GMOs
What's worse, the new legislation changes the very definition of
bioengineering. The newest biotech methods, such as gene editing
technology, would be exempt from the disclosure standards.
Indeed, the definition of "bioengineered" is so narrow it actually ends
up excluding many, if not most, GE products currently on the market.
Folks, this is about as crazy as it gets, and it's a double insult to
every American who has fought so hard for GMO transparency and honesty.
In an email, Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist for Consumers Union, notes:10
"Since the mutant EPSPS gene (conferring glyphosate resistance) is
found in nature in Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, and most of the Cry
proteins ... are found in Bacillus thuringiensis, a narrow reading of
this definition would not include the RoundUp Ready crops nor the vast
bulk of Bt crops.
It would only include those crops that have hybrid Cry proteins (which don't occur in nature).
The bill realizes that this definition of 'bioengineering' is
significantly different than the definition that Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) uses ... since there is a section that says the definition only applies to this bill ...
Another loophole is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will
get to suggest the level of GE content that will trigger labeling, e.g.
set a tolerance or threshold ...
Indeed, the bill seems to realize that the various exemptions are
extensive, since another part of the bill says that just because a food
is not required to be labeled as
'bioengineered' it cannot be labeled as 'non-GMO' ... So, this means
that the non-GMO project labels will still exist.'"
Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has criticized the
bill. In its technical comments, the FDA notes that the way GMOs are
redefined, it may be difficult for any GMO to qualify for labeling!
Moreover, the bill gives the USDA sole authority over GMO claims on
food, which would normally fall under the FDA's jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, it appears this bill is more or less a done deal already,
in large part due to the Organic Trade Association11 (OTA) selling out.
OTA, a Mere Pawn of the GMA?
Sadly, it appears the OTA is little more than a pawn of the GMA, as
big junk food have gobbled up smaller organic companies. The OTA is
using the same inaccurate talking points as Big Food when talking about
how good this bill is, when in reality the OTA has sold out and
abandoned the organic food movement.
According to the OTA,12
the Roberts-Stabenow bill "covers thousands more products than
Vermont's GMO labeling law and other state initiatives." This simply
isn't true. The reality is that this bill would label FEWER products, as
it doesn't cover all the GMOs covered by Vermont's law and other
labeling initiatives.
As just discussed, most GMOs on the market — as much as 99 percent — could potentially be exempt
from labeling under this bill! Moreover, since there's no enforcement,
the labeling requirements are hardly more than a voluntary suggestion.
How did the OTA become so misguided? In short, large multinational
food companies have bought up many popular organic brands and have
effectively infiltrated and in large part taken over the OTA.13
The companies that convinced the OTA to support the DARK Act and its current iteration are non-organic junk food brands
that happen to own organic brands. Their main concern is NOT protecting
organics however. They're exploiting the organic market niche, but the
real money is still in selling their inexpensive GMO wares.
Who really owns the organic brands you trust and love? Check out the Cornucopia Institute's "Who Owns Organic" graphic.14 You may be surprised.
Take J.M. Smuckers Company, for example. With annual revenue of about $8
billion, Smuckers is best known for their sugary condiments and
unhealthy "food-like substances" sold under the Dunkin' Donuts,
Pillsbury, Jif and Crisco brands.
Alas, Smuckers also owns RW Knudsen and Santa Cruz juices, and Smuckers' employee Kim Dietz is on the OTA Board of Directors.15
If you think this makes Smuckers a pro-organic company, you'd be wrong.
Smuckers spent $640,000 to oppose GMO laws in Oregon and Colorado, and
$550,000 to oppose labeling in California.
In total, Smuckers has spent $1.19 million to defeat GMO labeling.
They may have employees on the OTA board — and when it lobbies Congress,
Smuckers can represent itself as an OTA member16 — but their corporate behavior is anything but pro-organic.
It lobbied to pass the DARK Act, using a firm that also represents the GMA,17
and evidence suggests Smuckers has manipulated the OTA for years. Not
only does Smuckers use GE ingredients in their foods, according to the
OCA,18
"the President of the Board of Directors of the OTA, Julia Sabin, VP/GM
of Smucker Natural individually profits from Smucker selling GE foods."
What OTA and 'Big Food' Members Gain by Undermining Transparency
The sad fact is, the OTA does NOT speak for a majority of the truly
organic food producers in the U.S. and does not represent the organic
community's interests. What's worse, it appears the OTA purposely
undermined transparency in order to protect the organic niche.
Mandatory disclosure of GMOs would actually eliminate a key advantage
that organic conveys. As I've repeatedly mentioned, one of the key
reasons for eating USDA 100 percent organic is to avoid unlabeled GMOs.
If GMOs must be disclosed, Big Organic loses that selling point. So,
crazy as it may seem, anti-transparency actually benefits organics.
Moreover, the bill would also allow organic companies to make non-GMO
claims on their products.
Loopholes Abound in Roberts-Stabenow 'Smart Label' Deal
Other details of the agreement include the following, which offer the
food industry plenty of leeway when it comes to accurately and honestly
disclosing GMOs:19
"Very small" food manufacturers and all restaurants would be exempt from GMO disclosure rules
Meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMO grains would be exempt from any disclosure requirement
Food products where meat, poultry or egg is the main ingredient,
such as pizza for example, would be exempt even if it contains GMOs like
high-fructose corn syrup from GE corn or, say, GE soybean or canola oil
The USDA would have no authority to require recalls of products that don't comply with the labeling requirements
There would be no federal penalties for violations, although states
would be allowed to impose fines for violations under state consumer
protection rules
People Don't Use QR Codes, Which Is Exactly Why Industry Wants Them
QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smartphones and other QR readers.20
The code brings you to a product website that provides various details
about the product. But these so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve
access to information.
A mere 16 percent of poll respondents say they've ever scanned a QR code to get information about a product,21,22
and to expect shoppers to scan and read an entire website for each and
every product in their cart in order to determine whether or not they
contain GMOs is beyond ludicrous.
Besides the fact that it's simply not a workable method, it's just plain wrong since everyone
has a right to know what's in the food. You shouldn't have to own a
smartphone to obtain this information. As previously noted by Lisa
Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth:
"GMO labeling via QR code technology is unworkable, threatens
privacy and is discriminatory since more than a third of Americans, many
of which are low-income or live in rural areas with poor internet
access, don't own smartphones."
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union,
the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, issued a similar
statement in response to the Roberts-Stabenow bill:23
"This deal is unacceptable to the 9 out of 10 Americans who support
mandatory GMO labeling. Consumers deserve to know what's in their food
and to be able to make informed decisions. They have been clear that
they want straightforward GMO labels that they can read and understand
at a quick glance when shopping.
This law would instead allow GMO disclosure to be done through
scannable codes, phone numbers or websites — making it difficult, if not
impossible for the average consumer to find out what they want to know
as they try to decide which kind of cereal or snack to buy.
While we appreciate efforts by Senator Stabenow and others to seek a
better bill than the one passed by the House last summer, this deal
does not meet consumer needs. QR codes, 1-800 numbers or websites aren't
a solution. The new Senate bill is just another way to allow companies
to keep consumers in the dark — especially the one-third of Americans
who don't own a smartphone and those in rural areas without reliable
broadband service."
Vow to Boycott Foods Bearing QR Codes
It should be crystal clear to everyone that by being time-consuming and
cumbersome (and in some cases impossible) to use, food makers know the QR codes will help them hide the presence of GMOs in their products, and this is precisely why I propose a new strategic campaign: boycott all products bearing QR codes. The proposed legislation would allow companies to divulge the presence of GMOs in their product using one of three ways:24
Text on the package (although the exact and now-familiar terms
"GMO," "genetically modified" or "biotechnology" are not necessarily
going to be required. The USDA would determine the language)
A symbol (to be determined by the USDA)
A QR code (or for smaller food companies, a website address or 1-800 number)
If a company refuses to clearly label their product as containing
GMOs via text or symbol, and opts for a Smart Label instead, I believe
it's safe to assume it's because it has something to hide. They're just
trying to prevent as many people as possible from finding out the truth
right away by not putting clear text or a GMO symbol on their product.
Why play along? If they want to be coy and opaque, strike back where it
hurts — their bottom line. Don't waste valuable time searching for the
information they want to hide. Instead, just don't buy the product!
Food Industry Group Has ILLEGALLY Lobbied to Remove Consumer and State Rights
The GMA is an industry group made up of a conglomeration of the biggest
junk food producers on the planet, and this organization, which I dubbed
the "Most Evil Organization on the Planet"
in 2014, is a key player in this GMO labeling drama. The companies
represented by the GMA are largely responsible for the massive obesity
epidemic that spreads sickness and disease, yet they refuse to take
responsibility and amend their ways.
Instead, they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to deny your
right to know important facts about the food you eat and remove state
rights, while further corrupting Congress through massive lobbying
"donations."25
A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the "Smart Label"
trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called "compromise" to
on-package GMO labeling, and that's another reason why I believe the
Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide.26
The GMA's 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE
seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow, Coca-Cola and
General Mills are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful
industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes
to protect the interest of its members.
This includes deceptive and outright illegal tactics to take away
consumer and state rights. For example, in March, the GMA was found
GUILTY of perpetrating an $11 million money laundering scheme during
Washington's 2013 GMO labeling initiative. The aim was to hide the
identities of the members contributing to the campaign, in order to
shield them from consumer backlash.27
How can the GMA and its members possibly be trusted to do the right
thing? Let's not forget that doing the right thing is absolutely
critical here, because we're talking about companies that (are supposed
to) provide nourishing sustenance to you and your family. If honesty is
important in any business, it would surely be the food business!
Yet in just three years, from 2013 through 2015, the food industry spent
nearly $200 million on anti-labeling campaigns. If you bought any
processed food at all in the last few years, you have undoubtedly
supported their efforts to pull the wool over your eyes because the list
of traitor companies is long indeed, and contains many of the most
widely bought brands in the U.S. Isn't it time to stop paying these
companies to lie to you and deceive you?
Encourage Your Favorite Brands to Shun 'GMA's Verified Ring of Deception'
My suggestion? When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a
food product, pass it by. Products bearing the GMA's Smart Label mark
are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.
Don't waste your time searching through their website, which may or may
not contain the information you're looking for. If they insist on
wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them
with a purchase?
If you think this sounds like a challenge, I beg you to reconsider
and to take the wide view. What's your health, and the health of your
family, worth to you? Remember, each and every time you shop, you
actively support one type of food system or another. Will you
financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a
healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides
big-brand processed foods that are part of the "GMA's verified ring of
deception." You can:
Shop at local farms and farmers markets
Only buy products marked either "USDA 100 percent Organic" (which by
law cannot contain GMOs), "100 percent Grass-Fed," or "Non-GMO
Verified"
If you have a smartphone and you don't mind using it, download the OCA's Buycott app
to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands
belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the
names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage
Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and
to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually
ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA's "verified ring of deception" mark that is the Smart Label.
Campbell's, Mars, Kellogg's, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont's GMO labeling law
by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans
change if the current "compromise" gets passed by the Senate? That
remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage
you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their
promise.
Spread the Word to
Friends And Family
By Sharing this Article.
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment