Byrne, P.. "Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods." .
Colorado State University, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 May 2014.
<http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html>.
P. Byrne first points out several facts on the fight for labeling vs. not labeling GMO’s. This article was written in 2010, before any state successfully passed any bill on label change. He mentions the most common GE crops are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. The top two are or soybeans and corn. Its estimated that 60-70 % of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE ingredient. He continues with the current labeling policy regarding many different aspects of the food including allergens, nutrition, and GE foods. There are guidelines for voluntary labeling of foods that contain GE ingredients which Byrne has a chart for. The chart has the wording used on a label and then a FDA comment about the wording. One common phrase used is GMO FREE. The FDA doesn’t recommend using the word Free because it’s almost impossible to verify that a food is 100% free.
Byrne also lists several arguments Pro-Labeling and Anti-Labeling. A couple of the Pro-Labeling arguments are: Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems, and Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised (Raab and Grobe, 2003). A couple of the Anti-Labeling arguments Byrne states are: Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients, and Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected.
Some of the issues with mandatory labeling of GE foods are very complex and require much debate on how they would be covered. There are many different levels of engineered crops meaning one crop may be 1% and another may be .2 %. In the case of livestock, eggs and dairy products, how might the food for the animal play a role in this labeling battle. The economic impact of getting the labeling done lays far beyond the labels themselves. There would have to be extensive research to find out the levels of each crop and or food for the animals. The seed manufacturer for the crop would be under scrutiny as well. These costs would come into play somewhere along the line and fall under someone’s pocket book.
P. Byrne’s article was very helpful because it only laid out facts. There was no bias or one sided writing. By laying out just the facts it helps readers make up their own mind. He also includes some information regarding the plants themselves and how many of the GE plants are used in commercial food production. I don’t think that was a tactic to surprise people into siding with the Pro-labeling movement, but some people may have been surprised at the high percentage of food that has GE ingredients. Incorporating how the impact of labeling or not labeling in other countries into the article helps see what may happen either way. There are so many other countries that either have gone through this or are going through this that seeing an outcome helps make better decisions.
Center For Food Safety. "Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Laws." . Center For Food Safety, n.d. Web. . <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/>.
This is a map of labeling laws across the world. It is an interactive map that includes a lot of information.
FDA. "FDA Proposes Updates to Nutrition Facts Label on Food Packages." . U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm387418.htm>.
The FDA has proposed an update to the well-known Nutrition Facts label on our foods. With the help from Michelle Obama they have added information to help make healthier choices and taken some out dated information off that is no longer applicable to everyday life. The format and look of the label hasn’t changed just how they present the information. One Noticeable change is the size font they’ve used to indicate calories. New information that is required is: the amount of “added sugars” in the product, any package that may be consumed in one sitting has to have “per serving” and “per package” nutrition information, and they now require the declaration of potassium and vitamin D amounts. Along with adding information they are not making it mandatory to include “calories from fat” or vitamins A and C. Aside from the physical changes to this infamous label they are updating much of the information too. They will be updating the serving size to reflect what people actually eat, along with revising the daily values for a variety of nutrients. The article states that this is all being done to help the consumer read and understand the label and help them understand the nutritional value of foods. “These changes proposed will affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products…”
This article was very helpful in deciphering all the information out there about how they “might” change the labels. It also laid out exactly what is proposed and why. There are many opinions about why they FDA is making certain changes but I needed that facts. I used the information on the proposed changes and the picture of the before and after labels.
"Guidance for Industry: A Food Labelling Guide (3. General Food Labeling Requirements)." . U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Labeling
Nutrition/ucm064866.htm>.
This article laid out all of the guild lines for labeling any kind of product you can think off. Is has the placement guild lines, size guild lines, and the terminology that should be used. This is basically a step by step on labeling. This would be used for anyone making a new product that will be sold commercially. This helped with any questions I had about what needed to be on the label and how it was incorporated.
Hallenbeck, Terri. "VT. Gov Says He'll Sign Genetically Modified Food Label Bill." . The Burlington Free Press, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/24/genetically-modified-foods-bill/8094925/>.
This article states that Vermont’s governor has said he will sign a bill, after it’s passed, requiring GE foods be labeled. The law would go into effect on July 1, 2016. The article goes on to summarize what genetically modified organisms are and what percentage of foods on the shelves contain them. It says that 70-80% of packaged products in a grocery store would need to be labeled. Vermont is also “seeking to halt the use of genetically modified seed,” Also in the bill, they anticipated legal opposition so they put a $1.5 million fund to help with legal costs for a lawsuit. If they lose a lawsuit they project it costing $5-$8 million. Aside from requiring the labeling of all GE goods, this bill excludes meat, dairy, liquor, and prepared food at restaurants.
This being the first bill of its kind is a landmark in the labeling battle across the country. It’s going to be watched with extreme scrutiny on how they implement it and especially the economic impact of something like this. This article was very helpful in laying out how the state went about it and how much of the state really backed this.
The Times Editorial Board. "Base Food Labeling on Fact, Not Fear." . LA Times, 5 May 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gmo-food-labeling-20140505-story.html>.
The LA Times Editorial Board wrote this article that favors not labeling GMO food. They base the attempt to get food manufacturers to have to label GMO food on a “scare campaign” that is not based on any scientific fact. By bringing up the fact that everyone can look up on the internet whether the food their buying has any GMO’s in it, is reason enough to not require a change in labeling. They also talk about a bill introduced in the senate that states foods with genetic engineering “can increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens…” but it doesn’t mention any scientific studies that have found no evidence of this.
This article brings a new argument into light for the labeling of GMO’s. Whether or not people should be held accountable for learning more about what they eat. Is it far they want you to have to do research before you go to the grocery store? I found it thought provoking.
The Times Editorial Board. "From the FDA, A Mixed Bag of Food Labels.". LA Times, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-fda-nutrition-labels-20140228-story.html>. This article by the Times Editorial Board is a response, of sorts, to the press release by the FDA regarding their proposal of updates to the current “Nutrition Facts” label. The article states that it has been 20 years sense the label was made mandatory on all food products sold in the U.S. The article mentions some of the main changes proposed by the FDA and states some possible “holes” and good points in the proposal. The first change they mention is the adding of the “added sugars” category. Doctors and dietitians have said that is “no nutritional difference” between natural sugars and added sugars according to the Times Editorial Board. They ask “Why make such a change?” They also mention the change in serving size and calorie count. Calories seem to be what most people are looking for when they turn the package to read the label so making them the most prominent text is a step in the right direction. According to the article changing the serving size is rising other concerns. The proposal says it will change some serving sizes to what most people eat or drink in one sitting. Most people that drink soda drink a 12oz can in a sitting or a 20oz bottle in a sitting. So if people start seeing a 20oz bottle is one serving will they think this is a reasonable size?
I found this article very interesting and it brought up several good points on the proposal. I think they forgot it was a “proposal” and took it as law. The information in this article is mostly opinion based but very intuitive thinking. It points out the long road ahead of the FDA for making some changes to this label.
Phillips, Peter W.B., and Heather McNeill. "A Survey of National Labeling Policies for GM Foods." . University of Saskatchewan, 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a07-phillipsmcneill.htm>.
At the time of this article there were no states in America that had any legislation put in place for labeling GE foods. The article brings to light how countries around the world acted when called upon by its residents for labeling of GE foods. It shows many countries acted swiftly and in the best wishes of the concerned. Is shows that the first step in many countries was to adopt some sort of voluntary labeling strategy. Though nothing was law or required they set some standards that would someday help standardize the labeling process. 1999 brought some of the first steps in the GE labeling movement. This is the year that an independent review of the biotechnology field was started and highlighted public concerns over the lack of labels. This year the USDA also released some guidelines for companies that wanted to voluntarily label their GE foods. When this article was written in 2001, 22 countries plus the EU had adopted plans to make labeling GE foods mandatory in the near future.
The main information I gained form this article was on the steps countries took to make GE labels mandatory. This article broke down several countries steps and measuring standards for GE labeling including the percentage a product has to be before it requires a label. It also helps see how chaotic this process can be for countries. Without one standard for the world one product may come to a country labeled that doesn’t have to be and vice-versa.
"Victory for the Food Movement in Vermont on GE Food Labeling." . Center for Food Safety, 8 May 2014. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3136/victory-for-the-food-movement-in-vermont-on-ge-food-labeling#>.
This article announces the first law of its kind to pass in a state government. Other states such as Connecticut and Maine have passed similar laws but they are contingent on other states to pass laws for them to go into effect. In 20014 34 states have introduced bills that require labeling. They have yet to see any action taken at the federal level though. The Center for Food Safety has been advocating for a change in the labeling for over a decade, when they became a main stream source of food production. They sent a legal petition to the U.S. FDA basically laying out a “blue print” for this movement to begin. This petition has the backing of over 650 organization and over 1.4 million people. The Center for Food Safety has provided a number of states legal assistance in their fight for GE labeling. They also mention a bill introduced that has been dubbed DARK “Denying Americans the Right-to-Know” The DARK act would block any mandatory labeling of GE foods at the state level. This bill has the backing of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
The article really lays out the fight that is going on across the country about this. It is really gaining steam and power in the state governments. This year alone has seen 34 states introduce new bill that require, in one way or another, some form of labeling GE foods. Finding out how many people really have the back of this movement is eye opening. I found this article very helpful in pointing out several of the key points in the fight for and the fight against labeling genetically engineered foods.
Zilberman, David. 2012. "The Logic and Consequences of Labeling GMOs.” ARE Update 15(5):5-8. University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
This article researches many of the economic benefits and environmental benefits of GE crops as wells as some effects of labeling them. The article starts by pointing out that the science behind GE crops shows them to be at least as safe as non-GE crops and that many countries have in fact banned the growing of GE crops. Talking about the technology behind the actual engineering of the crop Zilberman mentions how far the technology has come and how the cost of gaining this information is going down. With the advances in the technology there are more ways to manipulate the genome to improve a variety of qualities including pest control, nutritional quality, and shelf life.
The percentage of pesticides used across the world due to GE crops has dropped drastically. Argentina has dropped 47%, China down 65% and Mexico down 77% using Bt Cotton. By not having to spray pesticides drops cost for the farmer that intern drops prices for consumer. The annual gain form GE soybeans in 1999 was between $500 million and 1.1 billion. 2001 saw a jump in gain to $1.25 billion. When pesticides are not used the farmers don’t have to till their soil as much to help break down the chemicals in the ground. This helps prevent soil erosion and chemicals flowing into rivers and streams. By bringing the yield of crops in the fields up this means there is no need to make more agricultural land, so less deforestation.
Zilberman thinks the question isn’t whether consumer should have a choice on the consumption of GE food, but whether the norm will be GE food and the non-GE food be labeled.
I have found this article to be the most beneficial when talking about factual evidence regarding GMO crops. We have evidence of how they work and how they can change economies and environments. It also an even better question to be asking, is it easier to label things non-GE? Is that easier than coming up with all the regulations regarding what constitutes a GE product? Or are the questions the same just in reverse.
P. Byrne first points out several facts on the fight for labeling vs. not labeling GMO’s. This article was written in 2010, before any state successfully passed any bill on label change. He mentions the most common GE crops are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. The top two are or soybeans and corn. Its estimated that 60-70 % of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE ingredient. He continues with the current labeling policy regarding many different aspects of the food including allergens, nutrition, and GE foods. There are guidelines for voluntary labeling of foods that contain GE ingredients which Byrne has a chart for. The chart has the wording used on a label and then a FDA comment about the wording. One common phrase used is GMO FREE. The FDA doesn’t recommend using the word Free because it’s almost impossible to verify that a food is 100% free.
Byrne also lists several arguments Pro-Labeling and Anti-Labeling. A couple of the Pro-Labeling arguments are: Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems, and Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised (Raab and Grobe, 2003). A couple of the Anti-Labeling arguments Byrne states are: Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients, and Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected.
Some of the issues with mandatory labeling of GE foods are very complex and require much debate on how they would be covered. There are many different levels of engineered crops meaning one crop may be 1% and another may be .2 %. In the case of livestock, eggs and dairy products, how might the food for the animal play a role in this labeling battle. The economic impact of getting the labeling done lays far beyond the labels themselves. There would have to be extensive research to find out the levels of each crop and or food for the animals. The seed manufacturer for the crop would be under scrutiny as well. These costs would come into play somewhere along the line and fall under someone’s pocket book.
P. Byrne’s article was very helpful because it only laid out facts. There was no bias or one sided writing. By laying out just the facts it helps readers make up their own mind. He also includes some information regarding the plants themselves and how many of the GE plants are used in commercial food production. I don’t think that was a tactic to surprise people into siding with the Pro-labeling movement, but some people may have been surprised at the high percentage of food that has GE ingredients. Incorporating how the impact of labeling or not labeling in other countries into the article helps see what may happen either way. There are so many other countries that either have gone through this or are going through this that seeing an outcome helps make better decisions.
Center For Food Safety. "Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Laws." . Center For Food Safety, n.d. Web. . <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/>.
This is a map of labeling laws across the world. It is an interactive map that includes a lot of information.
FDA. "FDA Proposes Updates to Nutrition Facts Label on Food Packages." . U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm387418.htm>.
The FDA has proposed an update to the well-known Nutrition Facts label on our foods. With the help from Michelle Obama they have added information to help make healthier choices and taken some out dated information off that is no longer applicable to everyday life. The format and look of the label hasn’t changed just how they present the information. One Noticeable change is the size font they’ve used to indicate calories. New information that is required is: the amount of “added sugars” in the product, any package that may be consumed in one sitting has to have “per serving” and “per package” nutrition information, and they now require the declaration of potassium and vitamin D amounts. Along with adding information they are not making it mandatory to include “calories from fat” or vitamins A and C. Aside from the physical changes to this infamous label they are updating much of the information too. They will be updating the serving size to reflect what people actually eat, along with revising the daily values for a variety of nutrients. The article states that this is all being done to help the consumer read and understand the label and help them understand the nutritional value of foods. “These changes proposed will affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products…”
This article was very helpful in deciphering all the information out there about how they “might” change the labels. It also laid out exactly what is proposed and why. There are many opinions about why they FDA is making certain changes but I needed that facts. I used the information on the proposed changes and the picture of the before and after labels.
"Guidance for Industry: A Food Labelling Guide (3. General Food Labeling Requirements)." . U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Labeling
Nutrition/ucm064866.htm>.
This article laid out all of the guild lines for labeling any kind of product you can think off. Is has the placement guild lines, size guild lines, and the terminology that should be used. This is basically a step by step on labeling. This would be used for anyone making a new product that will be sold commercially. This helped with any questions I had about what needed to be on the label and how it was incorporated.
Hallenbeck, Terri. "VT. Gov Says He'll Sign Genetically Modified Food Label Bill." . The Burlington Free Press, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/24/genetically-modified-foods-bill/8094925/>.
This article states that Vermont’s governor has said he will sign a bill, after it’s passed, requiring GE foods be labeled. The law would go into effect on July 1, 2016. The article goes on to summarize what genetically modified organisms are and what percentage of foods on the shelves contain them. It says that 70-80% of packaged products in a grocery store would need to be labeled. Vermont is also “seeking to halt the use of genetically modified seed,” Also in the bill, they anticipated legal opposition so they put a $1.5 million fund to help with legal costs for a lawsuit. If they lose a lawsuit they project it costing $5-$8 million. Aside from requiring the labeling of all GE goods, this bill excludes meat, dairy, liquor, and prepared food at restaurants.
This being the first bill of its kind is a landmark in the labeling battle across the country. It’s going to be watched with extreme scrutiny on how they implement it and especially the economic impact of something like this. This article was very helpful in laying out how the state went about it and how much of the state really backed this.
The Times Editorial Board. "Base Food Labeling on Fact, Not Fear." . LA Times, 5 May 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gmo-food-labeling-20140505-story.html>.
The LA Times Editorial Board wrote this article that favors not labeling GMO food. They base the attempt to get food manufacturers to have to label GMO food on a “scare campaign” that is not based on any scientific fact. By bringing up the fact that everyone can look up on the internet whether the food their buying has any GMO’s in it, is reason enough to not require a change in labeling. They also talk about a bill introduced in the senate that states foods with genetic engineering “can increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens…” but it doesn’t mention any scientific studies that have found no evidence of this.
This article brings a new argument into light for the labeling of GMO’s. Whether or not people should be held accountable for learning more about what they eat. Is it far they want you to have to do research before you go to the grocery store? I found it thought provoking.
The Times Editorial Board. "From the FDA, A Mixed Bag of Food Labels.". LA Times, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-fda-nutrition-labels-20140228-story.html>. This article by the Times Editorial Board is a response, of sorts, to the press release by the FDA regarding their proposal of updates to the current “Nutrition Facts” label. The article states that it has been 20 years sense the label was made mandatory on all food products sold in the U.S. The article mentions some of the main changes proposed by the FDA and states some possible “holes” and good points in the proposal. The first change they mention is the adding of the “added sugars” category. Doctors and dietitians have said that is “no nutritional difference” between natural sugars and added sugars according to the Times Editorial Board. They ask “Why make such a change?” They also mention the change in serving size and calorie count. Calories seem to be what most people are looking for when they turn the package to read the label so making them the most prominent text is a step in the right direction. According to the article changing the serving size is rising other concerns. The proposal says it will change some serving sizes to what most people eat or drink in one sitting. Most people that drink soda drink a 12oz can in a sitting or a 20oz bottle in a sitting. So if people start seeing a 20oz bottle is one serving will they think this is a reasonable size?
I found this article very interesting and it brought up several good points on the proposal. I think they forgot it was a “proposal” and took it as law. The information in this article is mostly opinion based but very intuitive thinking. It points out the long road ahead of the FDA for making some changes to this label.
Phillips, Peter W.B., and Heather McNeill. "A Survey of National Labeling Policies for GM Foods." . University of Saskatchewan, 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a07-phillipsmcneill.htm>.
At the time of this article there were no states in America that had any legislation put in place for labeling GE foods. The article brings to light how countries around the world acted when called upon by its residents for labeling of GE foods. It shows many countries acted swiftly and in the best wishes of the concerned. Is shows that the first step in many countries was to adopt some sort of voluntary labeling strategy. Though nothing was law or required they set some standards that would someday help standardize the labeling process. 1999 brought some of the first steps in the GE labeling movement. This is the year that an independent review of the biotechnology field was started and highlighted public concerns over the lack of labels. This year the USDA also released some guidelines for companies that wanted to voluntarily label their GE foods. When this article was written in 2001, 22 countries plus the EU had adopted plans to make labeling GE foods mandatory in the near future.
The main information I gained form this article was on the steps countries took to make GE labels mandatory. This article broke down several countries steps and measuring standards for GE labeling including the percentage a product has to be before it requires a label. It also helps see how chaotic this process can be for countries. Without one standard for the world one product may come to a country labeled that doesn’t have to be and vice-versa.
"Victory for the Food Movement in Vermont on GE Food Labeling." . Center for Food Safety, 8 May 2014. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3136/victory-for-the-food-movement-in-vermont-on-ge-food-labeling#>.
This article announces the first law of its kind to pass in a state government. Other states such as Connecticut and Maine have passed similar laws but they are contingent on other states to pass laws for them to go into effect. In 20014 34 states have introduced bills that require labeling. They have yet to see any action taken at the federal level though. The Center for Food Safety has been advocating for a change in the labeling for over a decade, when they became a main stream source of food production. They sent a legal petition to the U.S. FDA basically laying out a “blue print” for this movement to begin. This petition has the backing of over 650 organization and over 1.4 million people. The Center for Food Safety has provided a number of states legal assistance in their fight for GE labeling. They also mention a bill introduced that has been dubbed DARK “Denying Americans the Right-to-Know” The DARK act would block any mandatory labeling of GE foods at the state level. This bill has the backing of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
The article really lays out the fight that is going on across the country about this. It is really gaining steam and power in the state governments. This year alone has seen 34 states introduce new bill that require, in one way or another, some form of labeling GE foods. Finding out how many people really have the back of this movement is eye opening. I found this article very helpful in pointing out several of the key points in the fight for and the fight against labeling genetically engineered foods.
Zilberman, David. 2012. "The Logic and Consequences of Labeling GMOs.” ARE Update 15(5):5-8. University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
This article researches many of the economic benefits and environmental benefits of GE crops as wells as some effects of labeling them. The article starts by pointing out that the science behind GE crops shows them to be at least as safe as non-GE crops and that many countries have in fact banned the growing of GE crops. Talking about the technology behind the actual engineering of the crop Zilberman mentions how far the technology has come and how the cost of gaining this information is going down. With the advances in the technology there are more ways to manipulate the genome to improve a variety of qualities including pest control, nutritional quality, and shelf life.
The percentage of pesticides used across the world due to GE crops has dropped drastically. Argentina has dropped 47%, China down 65% and Mexico down 77% using Bt Cotton. By not having to spray pesticides drops cost for the farmer that intern drops prices for consumer. The annual gain form GE soybeans in 1999 was between $500 million and 1.1 billion. 2001 saw a jump in gain to $1.25 billion. When pesticides are not used the farmers don’t have to till their soil as much to help break down the chemicals in the ground. This helps prevent soil erosion and chemicals flowing into rivers and streams. By bringing the yield of crops in the fields up this means there is no need to make more agricultural land, so less deforestation.
Zilberman thinks the question isn’t whether consumer should have a choice on the consumption of GE food, but whether the norm will be GE food and the non-GE food be labeled.
I have found this article to be the most beneficial when talking about factual evidence regarding GMO crops. We have evidence of how they work and how they can change economies and environments. It also an even better question to be asking, is it easier to label things non-GE? Is that easier than coming up with all the regulations regarding what constitutes a GE product? Or are the questions the same just in reverse.