Replies to post #7880 on The Rising Influence of Rising Affluence

[DewDiligence]

MON and other ag-biotech companies use remote Hawaii locations for test plots of products under development. If this practice is banned, the companies will have to find an alternative tropical location, which will likely increase costs.

Thus, unlike the GMO labeling issue (which I consider a sideshow for such companies as MON), the proposed Hawaii legislation could actually affect the ag-biotech companies’ bottom lines.

[wow_happens28]

GMO is really the wrong debate, IMO

The debate should be about Round-Up and other chemicals. Whether the Round-Up is in the seed or sprayed on food it is bad for the human body, the soil and ground water. If you don't believe me, but some Round Up at your local Home Depot and spray it on your food and eat it every meal. Do that for one year and tell us how you feel. Any takers?

[Biowatch]

WHY WE WILL NEED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Climate change will make it increasingly difficult to feed the world.
Biotech crops will have an essential role in ensuring that there’s enough to eat.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/

[DewDiligence]

DuPont, Dow, and Syngenta sue to block Hawaii’s new law regarding disclosures of GMO field testing:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303819704579316993737808588

Notably, MON is not a party to the lawsuit even though it uses Hawaii extensively for field testing. This may be because the law is not as onerous as originally feared; i.e. it does not prohibit field testing of GMO’s except in locations near schools or nursing homes.

[DewDiligence]

(MON/DD/SYT/DOW)—Congressman introduces bill to preempt state laws requiring GMO labeling:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/usa-gmo-lawmaking-idUSL2N0N115F20140409

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

…“We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods. That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system.”

[DewDiligence]

MON/DD/SYT—Vermont requires GMO labeling of packaged foods and produce:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304788404579520090704755918

While Vermont is one of the smallest U.S. states, the legislation marks a victory for activists who have campaigned for GMO labeling, saying consumers have a right to transparency over the widely used technology. Food and agriculture industry groups, which have lobbied aggressively to block similar measures in other states, blasted the Vermont decision, saying it was driven by faulty science and would hurt consumers.

…The food industry, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has proposed a federal labeling bill, saying patchwork laws from various states would be too complicated. But its bill would only be enacted in the event that FDA reversed course and deemed GMOs unsafe for human consumption.

…Connecticut and Maine have adopted rules that would require labeling if a specified number of other states enact similar legislation. While Vermont's bill wouldn't trigger those, it gets them closer. Connecticut requires four additional states in the Northeast with an aggregate population of 20 million enact mandatory labeling laws, and Maine requires five neighboring states.

Vermont’s GMO legislation reminds of Maine’s attempt to ban the dissemination of prescription-drug data from individual doctors, which was eventually overturned on constitutional grounds. The two issues are entirely different, of course, but small New England states have a tradition of being the testing ground for novel ideas that are strenuously opposed by industry.

Note: If the federal bill mentioned in #msg-100328225 were to be enacted, it would preempt state bills requiring GMO labeling.

[DewDiligence]

(MON/DD/SYT)—Excerpt from an op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/23/gmos-are-key-tool-addressing-global-hunger/SPlNunvLl5WjovCpXvsihJ/story.html

GMOs Are a Key Tool to Addressing Global Hunger

…I have been intimately involved in the techniques of genetic modification as a scientist since GMOs were first conceived. In that time, hundreds of studies and tests have been done on GMO safety — and we’ve seen no scientific evidence that GMOs are inherently more dangerous than crops produced by traditional plant breeding.

Indeed, common sense suggests they are safer. With biotech plants, individual, known genes are introduced into a recipient plant. In conventional breeding, tens if not hundreds of unknown genes are transferred from one plant to another. And if that doesn’t work, then irradiation to introduce countless mutations is used to produce the desired traits. Yet this is considered safe because it is “natural.”

Emphasis added.