Page 92 - Summer 2019 Journal

But while the GMO industry is suffering some serious blows in the courtroom, it still clearly has far too much influence over federal agencies such as USDA, as seen by the extremely pro-industry GMO labeling rule released in January.
clearly has far too much influence over fed- eral agencies such as USDA, as seen by the extremely pro-industry GMO labeling rule released in January.
The rule does not require the use of the term “genetically engineered” or “GMO.” In- stead, the label uses the term “bioengineered,” even though consumers are very unlikely to realize that this new term actually means GMO.
And what is going to be labeled? The rule allows companies to choose whether or not to label highly refined products such as corn syrup and vegetable oil. While it’s better if people simply don’t eat such foods, it still matters—for health, environmental and ethical reasons—whether or not they are genetically engineered.
The rule also exempts the new techniques for genetically engineering plants and animals. Gene-editing using CRISPR is one example, where scientists manipulate an organism’s own DNA to silence certain genes or express otherwise silent genes. USDA agrees with the companies that such modifications “could” have been obtained through conventional breeding, and thus they won’t be considered bioengineered. Similarly, products made through a technology called RNA interference (RNAi), a gene editing technique for blocking the expression of certain genes, are unlikely to be covered. This means that the GMO Arctic Apple, a non-browning apple, will not require a label. More and more genetically engineered crops will be created using these techniques without requiring a label.
The USDA’s approach completely misses the point. Even if a particular change could have been brought about through traditional breeding, it wasn’t. And we don’t know whether the genetic engineering had addi- tional, unintended effects. The fact that it was brought about through genetic engineering in a laboratory means that consumers have a right to know.
Finally, while the USDA backed away from the absurd smiley face labels it had proposed, the final image is still misleading. It depicts a green field and a sun—natural im- ages to communicate the presence of decidedly
unnatural ingredients. And, as the final insult, even this misleading, weak label isn’t actually required, since companies can simply put a QR code on the package, requiring consumers to scan the code with a smartphone and then navigate a website to find the information.
The labels, weak as they are, must be in place by January 2022. In practical terms, consumers should continue with the advice we have been giving all along—buy from lo- cal producers you know. And when in grocery stores, look for certified organic and certified non-GMO labels.
STATE HIGHLIGHTS
ON AG-GAG AND RIGHT TO FARM
While the local food community continues to fight for food freedom and farmers’ ability to make a fair living, the large agribusinesses use similar rhetoric about the “freedom to farm” and protecting farmers to push for laws that hide them from public scrutiny and account- ability.
In Texas, the poultry industry pushed SB 1884, which would have made it a felony to have “unauthorized access” to an agricul- tural business’s documents or to come onto an agricultural facility’s property under false pretenses. This bill was aimed at the whistle- blowers who have gotten access to factory farms, filmed animal abuses or obtained docu- ments showing violations of environmental regulations, and then released that information to the public. The ag-gag provisions were not mentioned by the proponents of the bill—in- stead, they tried to focus attention on the far more justifiable provisions addressing penal- ties for people who gained access to a property and then hurt or released animals. Opposition from the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance led to amendments to the bill and ultimately its demise.
Iowa, however, continues to push forward with “ag-gag” laws. A 2012 statute made it a crime for journalists and advocacy groups to go undercover into meatpacking plants, livestock confinement operations and other agricultural businesses in order to investigate animal or worker conditions, environmental hazards and food safety issues. Earlier this year, a federal
90
Wise Traditions
SUMMER2019