A new interpretation on GM foods-Will such window dressing impress the consumers?

The debate about the safety of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods never seems to end and in fact it is becoming more and more bitter and acrimonious day by day. The vacillating attitudes of government policy makers regarding making labeling mandatory for foods derived from raw materials raised by genetic modification are making the consumers more and more disturbing leading to world wide campaigns to ban such foods until their safety is established beyond a shadow of doubt. Massive consumer movements and multi pronged initiatives by consumer groups across the world demanding at least forcing the industry to declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients are gaining momentum and it is a question of time before the industry has to bow before such cascading consumer pressure. A simple question as to why the GMO industry is fighting tooth and nail to sabotage plans for making label declaration mandatory is- why are they doing it if GMO foods are absolutely safe? May be industry has a feeling that consumers will boycott such foods if they become aware of presence of GMO ingredients in such products. Added to this many products carrying declaration that they do not contain GMO ingredients provide a ready platform for consumers to go selectively for such "neat" foods as perceived by them, in preference to the GMO containing ones. Ultimately it boils down to the impact this will have on the bottom line of many GMO food peddlers! 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA whose dictats are followed by many countries across the world has been very circumspect in its interpretation and policy orchestration vis-a-vis GMO foods. For ages FDA has been maintaining that GMO foods are "almost" like natural foods and are safe to consume by human beings. Probably such a policy support to the GMO industry has created a situation in that country where more than 80% of the processed food products made and marketed contain one or more GMO ingredients without the innocent consumer ever knowing about it! Does this not amount to deception by a government supposed to be the most democratic in the world? Is this ethical? Of course in an over democratized country like the US every individual has the right to do what he or she wants and true to this "ideal" the elected representatives also practice their fundamental right to say and do what they feel is right. It is another matter that a majority of these law makers are obliged to the GMO lobby because their elections have been bank rolled by them and they feel it is not correct to let their clients down by siding with the citizens though they forget that they owe their power to the very same electorate! 

Here is a contradiction which is very difficult to explain away. In some of the states the proposal to make declaration of GMO ingredients mandatory failed ballot initiatives giving an impression that people are not too concerned about this issue. On the other hand surveys after surveys have shown that more than 80% of the citizens want to make such labeling compulsory! This has been attributed to the massive propaganda unleashed by the GMO lobby to "brainwash" the consumers through half "truths" and "no truths" about the safety of GMO foods. To an ordinary citizen it does not make any sense to adopt GMO foods because nature provides foods which have been found safe over centuries and why there should be attempts to tinker with nature. Hybridization technology practiced since long takes time to give desired results but the resultant hybrids generated due to natural gene mutations are stable and safe, consumed since time immemorial. Also not easily understood by the common man is the advantage of GMO foods for them or for the humanity as the claims of increased yield through GMO technology has never been proven any where so far. Of course traits like pest resistance and others are incorporated through GMO technology but here again net advantage is not undisputed. 

Why is that the issue of GMO foods became a debating point again? Recent attempts by FDA to stop use of the phrase " does not contain GMO ingredients" by those not using them has created another unwarranted controversy and many feel that such an attempt is tantamount to punishing the citizen through denial of information about the nature of food being purchased by them. FDA feels that no one should use such declaration because many foods created through biotechnological process do not use genetically modified organisms all the times and most products are at best genetically "engineered" or "bioengineered"and therefore industry must shun using GMO word unnecessarily to avoid confusing the consumer. It is similar to saying that "no protein is present in an edible oil pack". May be there is a point and FDA may be right in issuing such an advisory which industry can adopt as long as no one uses the word GMO in any context. As far as consumer is concerned all he is interested is to know whether the food he is buying is made from natural ingredients with proven credentials. Whether the new FDA advisory is acceptable to the industry remains to be seen.

Many major food companies using genetic engineered food ingredients are happy that FDA has stuck to its position that it is not required for the processors to disclose presence of genetically engineered ingredients, sticking to its position that such products are not materially different from non-engineered versions. After all industry's efforts to resist mandatory labeling, fearing that customers will be scared off by foods known to contain genetically engineered ingredients seem to be succeeding. However the specious plea by them that mandatory labeling will drive the cost of the food cannot be accepted. It is a good sign that many major food companies have already moved to voluntarily label products that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients, either simply stating that on their packaging or using a small butterfly seal to show that the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit that provides certification for food producers, has certified the absence of genetic engineered substances. Interestingly there is a genuine attempt by many manufacturers in the US to source non-GMO. ingredients which is a good sign as far as consumers are concerned. According to a recent report there are more than 30000 products in the US market carrying the label that they are free from GMO food ingredients and probably this sector may be worth about $ 13.5 billion which may be a fraction of the total retailed foods estimated at $ 638 billion last year.

The desire of the citizens for accessing clean and safe foods is reflected by efforts in the US in different states to mandate labeling of foods that do contain genetically engineered ingredients but they have largely failed by narrow margins, after heavy lobbying and campaign spending by the food and biotech industries. it is in this context that the law makers at the federal level passed a bill that would require food companies to reveal presence of genetically engineered ingredient in food products via a QR code, a pixelated square that can be scanned with a smartphone, on packaging that will reduce the chorus for hard printing the same on every label. Though it may be acceptable to many people who have adequate computing literacy to read the code before making a buying decision, a vast majority might not be able to decode to understand the nature of the product. In such a situation FDA also wants to differentiate between genetically engineered and genetically modified to convey different things to the consumers. According to them genetically engineered product comes from the efforts of biotechnologists originating in a laboratory while genetic modification happens by natural process as in hybridization process. Thus we have three technical terms which include Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), Genetically Engineered (GE) and Genetically Modified (GM). Of the three GMO is the most dreaded because genes from another species find their way into a particular food, though in small quantities. This means GM foods are analogous to natural foods while GE foods are similar but created in the lab with some distinct advantages. 

Consumer is still left confused to make out what each of this term means if industry starts using all three terms for declaring their products are free from them. Probably more positive approach could be to make those using food ingredients created through GE or GMO technology to declare the same unequivocally as a part of the transparency protocol which consumers are bound to appreciate. Whether industry will agree for such a transparent practice is some what uncertain at this point of time because of monetary implications. Efforts of many manufacturers to source raw materials not tainted by GE or GMO will get rewarded only if declaration of presence or absence of lab created food ingredients on the label of each pack..

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

American consumer, the law makers and the Science-A big cauldron waiting to boil over!

Though genetically modified foods are predominantly produced and marketed in the United States, most consumers are either unaware of it or are helpless to do any thing to stem this trend of overwhelming GMO containing foods. The safety or otherwise of GMO foods is still a matter that divides humanity into opposing camps, one section finding no fault with them while the others vehemently loathing them. The gravity of the problem can be realized from the fact that even among scientists there is no consensus on this issue and how can one blame the consumer to take a stand on this burning issue. Whatever it is, in the US of to day consumers have no choice but to accept foods made from GMO raw materials and ingredients unless one has the wherewithal to spend a fortune to switch over to 100% organic foods. The fight that is going on to day in that country centers around the so called constitutional right of the citizen to know what he is eating and for that what they are asking is to just declare on the label of products whether GMO ingredients are there or not in the food packet. A well reasoned demand though the industry, politicians and bureaucrats do not think so, obviously because of pecuniary considerations.

Look at the stand taken by the safety watch dogs in that country viz Food and Drug Administration and US Dept of Agriculture both of which considers genetically altered foods "practically" same as their natural counterparts and therefore felt there is no need to specifically mention about their presence in any food on the label. One is left with the impression that the US wants to be a unique country in swimming against international views on almost all issues, probably because of the arrogance of power, being the only super power left in the global landscape after the demise of erstwhile Soviet Union. Other wise it is difficult to explain why it is cocking a snook at 64 other countries which have made label declaration about GMO foods mandatory! Why is this happening in a country which is supposed to be the beacon for all democracies in the world? Obvious answer is the nexus among politicians, bureaucrats and industry lobbyists to deny the consumer his right and make unholy money for their own welfare!

A peep into the American situation will reveal this paradox. According to recent reports a fierce food fight is going on in the Congress over the labeling of genetically engineered foods.with a substantial section of the law makers trying to block any move to enforce mandatory labeling of GMO foods in any part of the country. Is it not a paradox that in a federal system of governance, where states enjoy high degree of freedom to legislate, their right is being usurped by the federal government through an insidious bill that will block the power of states to enact any law that will mandate compulsory labeling of GMO foods! Who are these law makers trying to help? Of course the GMO industry giants who have a stranglehold on the American economy through their close nexus with politicians. This attempt comes in the wake of three states already putting on the statute book law that requires labeling of foods marketed in their area. Attempts in the past by some big states like California to legislate on similar lines were frustrated by saturated misleading campaign by the GMO lobby pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the voters. 

.

The attempt to pass a law called "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" if passed asks for setting up a voluntary nationwide labeling system overseen by the federal government. This bill, popularly renamed by the consumer activist groups as "DARK Act", acronym for Deny All the Right to Know" Act! Protagonists of GMO foods invariably argue that about 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, meaning that the crops have been artificially altered to use less water or resist pests and no calamity has befallen in the country. Also other supporters cite the clearance given by The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization all of them who have deemed all GMOs on the market as safe. 

However a major chunk of the consumer community is not convinced fully about the safety of such foods because of the common perception that industry does not have the well being of the citizens in their mind, relentlessly pursuing efforts to increase their profits and the scandals surrounding presence of unsafe chemicals hormones, steroids, transfats,etc further reinforce their distrust about the products churned out by the manufacturers. 

At present there are no government-approved labels to let consumers in the U.S. know which foods are derived from GMOs.It is funny that the US Government wants to leave to individual manufacturers to make any label declaration to indicate that their products are free from GMO ingredients without taking any responsibility to verify such claims! That has prompted many companies to advertise their food as "Non-GMO" by taking the services of existing Non-GMO Project which is a private nonprofit outfit floated by retailers. The group is claimed to be testing food products and do product segregation practices to verify that products with its butterfly seal contain less than 1 percent GMO ingredients. Can it be a long term solution when millions of consumers expect their government to come to their rescue by overseeing such label claims to infuse confidence in such products? If mandatory labeling is anathema to the political class which runs the country, least they can do is to set up a dedicated authority to verify claims of manufacturers that their products are free from GMO substances.Will this happen?  Depends on the intensity of struggle by the consumers on the government to sensitize them on this critical issue.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Another debate about safety vs advantages of GMO foods-Where lies the truth?

Reproduced below is a recently published treatise on genetically modified foods, their safety aspects and advantages. This is quoted below without any bias or prejudices and readers are free to come to any conclusion regarding the issues covered here:

In 2008, Duane Grant, who runs farms in Idaho and northern Oregon, began growing sugar beets from seeds that were genetically modified. As a result, he says he now uses fewer chemicals, tills the soil less often and gets larger yields from the same acreage — increasing profits and reducing his environmental footprint along the way.  "I am proud of that fact," he said. But that pride does not translate into support for a burgeoning consumer movement that would have mandatory labels placed on products containing sugars like his, such as juices, soft drinks and breakfast cereals, and on any other product containing a genetically modified organism, or GMO. Grant considers such labels irrational — a sentiment that aligns with the broader food industry, which has been spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years to avoid them, fearing they would drive customers away. Despite two decades of assurances from biotechnology firms, food processors, federal regulators and even a substantial share of scientists that GMO foods are safe, ballot initiatives and citizen petitions seeking labels on GMO foods are springing up as quickly as the industry can pay — or sue — to defeat them. Meanwhile, sales of foods labeled GMO-free have been steadily gaining ground on consumer shopping lists, and polls suggest that more Americans than ever favor labels that identify GMO foods.

This has even some supporters of genetic engineering wondering if it's time to rethink the labeling question. "If you give people a choice and value, that wins," said David Ropeik, a risk-communication consultant. He has begun calling on the industry to let go of its "fear of fear" and embrace GMO labeling, which is required in at least 64 other nations, including Japan, Australia, Russia, Brazil and more than a dozen European countries. But Grant, like many industry stakeholders, remains skeptical. "To allow popular perception of harm — or benefit — to be the basis for mandatory labeling would not result in food being safer," he argued. "It would result in the scientific community being pushed to the sidelines in favor of food-fad-of-the-day mob regulation."

Whether or not that's true, food makers are spending lavishly to avoid mandatory GMO labels. In 2012, for example, opponents of a California labeling proposition — including Monsanto, ConAgra and other genetically modified seed makers alongside food companies like Sara Lee, Coca-Cola and Kellogg's — spent a staggering $46 million, primarily on lobbying and advertising, to defeat the measure. Similar efforts in Washington the following year prompted the state's attorney general to sue the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), alleging that the leading food industry lobby was hiding the identity of the contributors to its anti-labeling campaign in violation of state election laws. The GMA eventually came clean, revealing that dozens of contributors — including Nestle, Del Monte, Coca-Cola and Hershey — had chipped in $7 million to kill the measure. In almost all such battles, the companies easily outspend label supporters. Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer, for example, were among a long list of food industry interests that contributed over $15 million to defeat a labeling measure in Colorado during November's elections, according to state records. Supporters of the bill managed to raise a tiny fraction of that amount. The initiative failed. Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and other food industry players pumped more than $30 million into efforts to quash a similar ballot initiative in Oregon — twice the amount supporters were able to muster. The industry is now locked in a fierce legal battle with Vermont, which passed a GMO labeling law last year, and companies have lobbied hard for federal legislation that would bar other states from following suit. A bill that would do that was introduced last spring by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas who, as it happens, received the largest single contribution — $10,000 — from the GMA for the 2014 election cycle, according to federal data. The bill did not make it out of committee, but Heather Denker, a spokeswoman for Pompeo's office, said he plans to reintroduce the bill in coming weeks.

The industry justifies all these expenditures on a variety of grounds. For starters, companies say, a hodgepodge of differing state labeling laws would be unworkable, and even a federal labeling rule would make food more expensive. They also argue that genetic modification, which involves the insertion of foreign genes into an organism — so far mostly crops like corn and soy — so that it expresses a new and ostensibly desirable trait, is really just one among a variety of plant breeding techniques that have been used for decades without complaint.

More substantively, GMO supporters argue that there is no evidence to suggest genetically modified foods present any more risk than conventionally bred fare, a view generally held by a long list of scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization. Taking a similar position, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food from GMO crops in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, has seen fit to leave GMO labeling a strictly voluntary affair. "As a public health agency, we base our policy decisions on the best science available," said Theresa Eisenman, an FDA spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way or that, as a class, such foods present different or greater safety concerns than their non-GE [genetically engineered] counterparts."
Although the FDA's review process is voluntary, virtually all producers of new GE products submit them to the agency for approval. Since the mid-1990s, the FDA has signed off on over 150 varieties of genetically engineered crops, though not all proved commercially viable. Most GMO-derived ingredients found on shelves today are from crops that were tweaked to improve resistance to pests and certain herbicides, but newer products with consumer-facing traits are in the pipeline. This includes the Arctic apple, which has been engineered to resist browning.
On Feb. 13 the USDA determined the apple was safe to grow, and the FDA is currently reviewing it. Eisenman also said that the agency is reviewing two citizen petitions urging the FDA to create a mandatory GMO label but that no decisions has been made — much to the chagrin of many consumers who remain unconvinced that GMOs are safe.  A survey published last month by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that while nearly 90 percent of scientists surveyed said they considered genetically modified foods safe to eat, only 37 percent of the general population agreed. An ABC News poll from last summer found similar results, with more than half of respondents saying they believed GMO foods were unsafe. In a 2013 New York Times survey, 93 percent of respondents said they wanted GMO ingredients identified on food labels.

Critics of such surveys argue that they only demonstrate ignorance of GM technology. Ropeik, for example, pointed to a 2013 study conducted at Rutgers University, in which participants were asked, in an open-ended question, what sort of information they would like on their food labels that isn't already there. Only 7 percent mentioned genetic modification. A more recent survey from Oklahoma State University found that 80 percent of respondents said they supported mandatory GMO labels. The same large percentage, however, also wanted labels on foods containing DNA. Such cognitive dissonance suggests to industry stakeholders that environmental advocates are simply exploiting consumer ignorance to force a label on technology they don't like. "It's clear to us that it's really meant as a skull and crossbones," said Cathleen Enright, the executive vice president for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group representing Monsanto, DuPont and other GE seed makers. "We shouldn't be using labels as a scare." Scott Faber, the vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy based in Washington, D.C., disagreed. "If you're framing this as a debate about technology, you're really missing the bigger picture," he said. "It's about what consumers are entitled to know, broadly, about their food." He argued that the jury remains out on questions of GMO safety, not just at the dinner table but also in the fields, where cross-pollination with conventional crops is difficult to control and where heavy reliance on GM seeds is contributing to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds, which in turn drives farmers to ramp up use of toxic chemicals. "These things have only been in the market for 15 years," Faber said, "and they've not been submitted to long-term studies, so it's still way too early to render a judgment one way or another on their safety." In the absence of consensus, the marketplace may be providing the differentiation many advocates seek. Labels certifying GMO-free foods are booming, with the lead certifier, the Non-GMO Project, placing its imprimatur on over 20,000 food, beverage and body care items. Nielsen, the market research firm, said sales of such products increased 15 percent last year, to nearly $10 billion, and it ranks the GMO-free sector among the fastest-growing food trends in the market today.

The USDA's organic certification already acts as a vouchsafe against GMO ingredients, and Whole Foods has taken the lead among major retailers in catering to consumer demand, requiring that by 2018, all products in its U.S. and Canadian stores either avoid GMOs or carry labels to indicate that they contain them. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has floated an even broader long-term solution: placing special bar codes on food packages that consumers can scan with their smartphones, obtaining all the information they could ever want about the food involved — where it was made, how it was processed, whether it was grown using hormones or antibiotics, what sort of allergens it might contain and, of course, whether it involved genetic modification. Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the GMA, suggested that the bar code solution has merit. "Our members are always looking for ways to use technology to provide consumers with more information about their product choices," he said. Until that happens, though, the GMA and its like-minded industry partners plan to keep battling the mandatory label movement — and to let voluntary non-GMO labeling provide consumers with the choice they're looking for.

In Idaho, Duane Grant suggested that identifying and labeling products that don't contain GMOs would be a lot easier to do these days anyway. "The fact is, about 80 percent of the food in the U.S. now contains ingredients produced using GM technology," he said, "and it has been that way for years."

After reading the above, what type of conclusion a lay man can come to? More confusion and more questions! One thing which strikes one is that both sides have their own strong views and may have some merits in their contentions and unless there is a unanimity consumers may not accept GMO foods unreservedly!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

GREEN MEAT?-IS IT POSSIBLE?

The debate regarding the need to eat animal "sacrificed" foods is as old has human history. While the vegetarian population is hardly about 10% in the world, most people are non-vegetarians by nature. With the ever increasing population in this planet, the demand for animal foods is galloping and it is a question of time before the gap between demand and supply becomes too big to be bridged. Moderation in meat foods consumption is more easily preached than practiced. There are plant protein based simulated meat products but these are at best substitutes not giving full satisfaction to the eaters. Expanding meat production using modern technologies is possible but at a tremendous cost to the environment as the green house gas emissions can rise to alarming levels causing unbearable global warming. Thus the mankind is faced with a Hobson's choice as to whether meat is to be shunned more substantially than what is being practiced to day.

Modern biotechnology came with cloning which was touted as an answer to produce more animals with disease free conditions. However this approach has been given up as the technology is too expensive to be translated into commercial scale operations. Genetic manipulations gave rise to higher yields of meat and jumbo salmons. Here again consumers are weary of genetically modified foods because of uncertainties regarding their long term safety. The clamor for labeling of GMO foods in the US can be taken as a manifestation of the desire of consumers to shun such foods with unsure safety credentials.

Campaigns have been undertaken from time to time in different parts of the world to promote vegetarianism because of the many ill effects of animal breeding, slaughtering and meat processing as it takes place to day. Moreover ethically killing a living creature to get the food for humans may be difficult to be justified. It is true that humans during evolution had to hunt for food just like other animals co-existing with him but to day there is no such need as Mother Earth can support production of plant foods, equally nutritious as animal food through modern farming technologies. Some of the food grains like Quinoa, Chea, Amaranthus etc can be more healthy than meat foods. But leeway has to be given to the present generation and the next one in consuming meat foods before gradually weaning away from them in about 30-50 years time. 

The organization PETA ( People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) is to be applauded for instituting an award of $ 1 million for any one coming out with a technology to make chicken meat without ever killing a bird! This means that such a meat has to be produced in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Many attempts in the past in this direction failed because of a variety of factors. Recent claims by a private company to have developed an egg without going through the chicken route did create some excitement, only to be disappointed when it was realized that this plant based egg substitute in powder form can be used only as an ingredient in many food preparations containing egg solids.

Another claim was recently made by a group of scientists in India to have made a milk like concoction from plant materials like drumstick leaves, mushroom etc, calling it "Green Milk", whatever that means! There are many patented formulas for milk substitutes derived mostly from plant materials but milk from Cow or Buffallo is a unique product which cannot be imitated 100% in terms of nutrition and functionality. Besides such "senseless" development can be considered as waste of scientific talents, resources and time. Of course a small population allergic to Milk Lactose or Casein do need plant based milk products but this demand can be met by the existing range of plant milks without going in for more research. 

It is against this background one has to see the challenge taken up by a maverick entrepreneur in the US to promote a laboratory grown meat for which he financed a group of scientists to the extent of about $ 330, 000 and succeeded in creating a beef muscle bundle, resembling the natural beef meat. The scientists used the stem cells from the shoulder of a cow to grow meat muscles by feeding nutrients from bovine fetus serum. The effort by itself is amazing as it required 20000 strips of tissues to be grown get about 140 gm of meat, considered adequate to make a burger! The novelty of the approach is really noteworthy and criticism regarding the cost of making this sample may be some what misplaced. As a scientific endeavor it is notable. 

One of the reservations on accepting the above product as a satisfactory imitator of beef is regarding its taste and over all satisfaction from the sensory perspective. According to those who are privy to the above development the "lab created" beef lacked the fatty taste and the texture was nowhere near that of the natural beef. The concept has been proved to be workable and since stem cells are present in every animal, this technology may work out in creating other meats like chicken, pork, mutton, lamb or even more exotic things such as caviar or shark liver. Theoretically one biopsy could provide enough stem cell material to easily grow 20,000 tonnes of lab meat. There may be a need to develop techniques to incorporate fat into such meats, improve the color and texture which may not be difficult for scientists. Using fat stem cells fat can be added while myoglobin can impart the typical meat color. Of course more challenging would be to imitate the meat texture which can be possible only by providing suitable skeletons for the muscle fiber to grow. How the cost can be brought down is the million dollar question which may take a long time to resolve. But with persistent and sustained efforts, there is no doubt that food scientists will come with the right product with right sensory quality at right price within a reasonable time.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"NATURAL" FOOD INGREDIENTS-WHERE ARE THEY?

Explosive growth of organic food industry owes largely to the rising concerns of consumers regarding the safety of products main stream food industry. In spite of the fact that organic foods cost 50-100% more than commercial alternatives, people seem to be willing to patronize them with the firm belief that their kith and kin are protected. Why should the consumers be worried so much about food products from the organized processing industry? The reasons are not far to seek. Most importantly the agriculture is dependent largely on heavy use of chemical crop protectants, most of them considered toxic to human beings even in small concentrations found as residues on the harvested crops. More recently another dimension has been added to the safety concerns of the people by the large scale production of genetically modified foods and their wide spread marketing without the consumer ever knowing about this transgression of their right to know what they are eating. Unfortunately in countries like the US more than 80% of the foods on the shelves of most markets contain GMO ingredients with no indication about their presence on the front of the pack label!

How serious is the issue of safety of GMO foods now omnipotent in the US market and in a few other countries? It will be an understatement of one says that GMO foods do pose serious problems of safety as adequate data are still not generated to conclusively prove that they are absolutely safe. If so why is that the safety authorities in countries like the US are not clamping down on the industry, giving them a free rein in the market? The guess is that they are in collusion with the GMO lobby for considerations other than the welfare of their citizens! Imagine the clout of this lobby which pumped so much money for defeating a ballot initiative in California that would have mandated compulsory labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients, that too after 80% of the population there wanted compulsory labeling! Note that people are not asking for banning the GMO foods but just make the industry to declare that they are present in the products offered!

Now that increasing evidence is accumulating regarding the uncertain safety credentials of GMO foods, more and more people are demanding from the industry to give them GMO free products. It is a sad situation in the US where the current President promised to make the industry declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients but promptly reneged on his solemn assurances after the election. If to day the anti GMO lobby has some clout it is due to the relentless campaign by a few voluntary organizations around the world. It is comical to see that the governments do not insist on declaration of GMO ingredients while not allowing those making products without GMO to declare the same on the labels of their products! The relentless pressure by people's organizations is making more and more people aware of the unnatural nature of genetically fiddled foods. 

It is shocking that about 90 percent or more of four major crops — corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets  in the US are grown from genetically engineered seeds. This poses another challenge to the user industry to source non-GMO counterparts to replace the GMO version in their product mix. Of course there is a limited production base for conventional varieties but a significant portion of the conventional varieties of those crops is exported while the organic food industry has cornered the rest. Besides, the livestock industry is reported to be increasing its demand for non-GMO crops to meet growing demand among consumers for eggs and meats sourced from animals that have never eaten genetically modified feeds. The magnitude of revulsion to GMO foods can be gauged by the recent massive protests in 436 cities in 52 countries rallying against the monopolist company that supplies GMO seeds all over the world! 

Another worrying factor is the impact of large scale shift of consumers from GMO foods to conventional ones on the price front. According to knowledgeable sources, the prices of non GMO version of Corn is commanding a premium price of almost 75-100% in the market and if the supply restraints become more acute the prices can further increase in the near future. Same applies to other crops also and the US is facing a massive dilemma in tackling this issue as it is difficult to grow conventional natural crops in fields which have been cultivating GMO crops. Recent finding of GMO wheat in a field in Midwest America was traced to a GMO wheat trial taken almost a decade ago by the GMO industry and is it not shocking that even after 10 years traces pf GMO crop remained raising enormous worries about the consequences of increased consumer resistance against GMO crops. Will the Americans be forced to eat GMO foods under such a situation even if labeling becomes mandatory as otherwise it will be starvation for them? 

Another dimension to this problem after the protests have gained a critical mass is who will vouchsafe the authenticity of non GMO crops. The policy makers and administrators do not seem to be capable of stemming this tide in favor of compulsory labeling. If so what logistical problem is going to arise once labeling is made mandatory? Most critical requirement will be to test foods for the presence of GMO ingredients and provide credible certification to those willing to avoid their use. Testing requires sophisticated facilities and experienced bio analysts both being in short supply. Probably the GMO lobby may be laughing all the way to their banks after putting the country in such a fix. It is time the US government addresses this concern and establish the much needed testing and certification facilities sooner than later.   

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

COMPULSORY LABELING OF GM FOODS-AN UNENDING AND UNEQUAL FIGHT!

The eternal debate about the safety and environmental problems associated with production and consumption of genetically modified foods seems to be getting more and more vitiated with both protagonists and antagonists taking up extreme positions unlikely to be reconciled in the foreseeable future. Both sides have marshaled their own "facts, figures and fictions" to score over the other side. What is missing in this monologue between the two sparring parties is utter disregard for the right of citizens to know what he or she is eating from a sealed food packet! Though many countries have either banned or restricted the use of GM food ingredients in consumable products marketed within their borders, there is a single exception, that is the US which refuses to recognize that GM foods may not be 100% safe and acceptable. It is sad that more than 80% of the food products in the US market do contain one or more of GM ingredients and shockingly this happens without the consumer ever knowing about the same. The present President of the US does not seem to be in a hurry, if at all he has any intention, to even mandate the industry to at least declare the presence of GM ingredients, if used, on the front of the pack label.

It is to break this inertia on the part of the federal government that a progressive state like California, due to the prodding of consumer activists took the ballot initiative for discerning the views of the citizens in the first week of November last year. In a puzzling development the results were completely shocking with slightly more than 50% of those who voted not finding it necessary to label food packets containing GM ingredients! This was in contrast to the findings of early sample survey studies which found that more than 80% wanted to make such declaration mandatory in the state. What turned the tide, according to dispassionate observers, was the false and misleading campaign by the perpetrators of GM technology involving more than $ 45 million expenditure to influence the thinking of the citizens and con them to vote against the proposal.This should be a lesson for all others regarding the financial and political clout of the GM lobby, fighting against whom may be a Herculean task.

The failure of the California ballot initiative that would have mandated labeling of genetically modified foods may not be a death knell for those seeking nationwide labeling because they pin their hope on President Obama as he is seen to be supportive of labeling. Still, efforts to force changes at a federal level could face an uphill climb because only a ballot victory at least in one of the states can trigger action at the federal level. There are new such state labeling initiatives which are planned for Washington state and Oregon. Antagonists are sparing no efforts to force change at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has primary regulatory oversight for food and food additives. A citizen's petition is pending with the agency demanding a re-examination of its policy against labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. More than one million people signed on making it a record as the most ever for a petition to the FDA. Probably the Californian ballot initiative did make more people aware of the issues surrounding GM foods.  If recent reports are any indication most average folks are well educated about this issue. 

To add strength to the campaign for forcing GM food producers to declare use of GM ingredients on the front of the pack label many organic and natural food companies, environmental and consumer groups have joined the movement recently and the issue cannot be ignored that easily any more. According to the strategists spear heading the action program filing of the petition in October 2011 was the first step which would be followed by a federal law suit against the FDA. The California measure, had it been approved would have provided leverage for the federal effort and therefore the 53 percent to 47 percent defeat in progressive California is considered a setback. The crux of the matter is that the American food , Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 is being too narrowly interpreted by FDA and treats modern-day GMO technology in a way that does not comply with the intent of the law to protect consumers. Genetically modified crops, which have had their DNA spliced with genetic material from other species, have been around for 16 years. Popular biotech crops can survive treatments of weedkiller and are toxic to insects that feed on the crops. And most processed foods sold in the United States contain some GMO corn, soybeans or other crops. The petition by the activists calls on the FDA to declare that molecular or genetic alterations are "material" changes relevant to consumers. 

The FDA's current policy, set in 1992, holds that foods derived from genetically modified plants were "substantially" equivalent to those produced through conventional means. The combination of FDA's failure to mandate pre-market safety testing and its permissive labeling policy has meant that silent changes to the food supply are tested on the public without their knowledge. Most members in the scientific community are frustrated because the industry and regulators are disregarding numerous studies showing harmful impacts from GMO crops. It was only recently that more than 70 scientists, academic researchers and professors declared that "corporate influence" was stifling research that finds negative implications connected with GMOs and they further aver that labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when. Against such a sordid background there is a silver lining which heralds a new beginning for those fighting against GM foods and that is the overwhelming legislature support for a law in the tiny state, Connecticut, mandating the industry to compulsorily declare on the label presence GM ingredients in the food products manufactured and marketed within the state. Probably other states will also promulgate such laws that can have a snow balling effect at the federal level. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com