The upcoming ASGA Annual Meeting in Scottsdale, Ariz., features an array of important topics.
Biotechnology, labeling issues and trade agreements are among the subjects to be discussed.
The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 19 rejected petitions from the Center for Food Safety and Truth in Labeling Coalition requiring the labeling of biotech foods.
“The petition does not provide evidence sufficient to show that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from foods derived from non-GE plant varieties in any meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, such foods present any different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding,” FDA said in its 35-page response to the Center for Food Safety.
The FDA made certain exceptions to these rules. For example, anytime a food derived from a genetically engineered plant is “materially different from its traditional counterpart,” the food’s label must reflect that difference. But the requirement permits companies to be vague in this disclosure. Rather than simply label the product as genetically modified, for example, soybean oil that has been genetically engineered to contain higher levels of oleic acid must now be labeled “high oleic soybean oil.”
“It’s excellent and proper,” said Luther Markwart, ASGA executive vice president. “There is no scientific reason to require labeling of products that have or were derived from GMOs. A couple of House hearings and a Senate hearing were very clear that everyone agrees there is no scientific basis for requiring labels.
“If there’s something unique or special and it’s different than from a conventional crop, then it would require some kind of a label. But clearly there’s no scientific evidence that justify that to happen.”
On that same day, the FDA approved genetically modified salmon, dubbed “Frankenfish” by many health-conscious Americans, as safe for human consumption. This marks the first time that a genetically altered animal has been approved.
According to the New York Times, the FDA’s approval of the AquaAdvantage genetically modified salmon “caps a long struggle for AquaBounty Technologies, a small company that first approached the FDA about approval in the 1990s.”
The decision was reportedly a surprise even to AquaBounty.
“We had no indication that approval was imminent,” said Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty CEO.
“If you’re able to produce a healthier product at a lower cost with really no threat to the environment, that seems to be a pretty good solution,” Markwart said.
Yet several major retailers have rejected the bioengineered food. Red Lobster and Costco Wholesale, the third largest retailer in the United States, committed to not selling the genetically modified salmon. Costco is joined by more than 60 supermarket chains, including Kroger, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods.
These decisions do not end the GMO labeling fight though.
The Center for Food Safety petition had argued that the use of biotechnology amounted to a “material” difference that merited mandatory labeling, “if it results in a change to a food at the molecular or genetic level” and a “significant share of consumers would find it relevant to their purchasing decisions.”
The group’s senior attorney, George Kimbrell, said it was reviewing its legal options.
“FDA has robust authority to require the labeling of GE foods and any decision to the contrary is legally wrong and contrary to good governance and the overwhelming public will.”
The Senate has not yet taken action on the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 referred to it by the House. There is reason for the Senate to act with some urgency. The first state GMO labeling law is set to take effect in July in Vermont.
Lawmakers are nearing agreement on legislation that would bar states from requiring the labeling of GMO foods while possibly requiring disclosure through smartphone codes and on the Internet.
While attending the meeting, congratulate Robert Green on being the 2016 Sugar Producer Grower of the Year.
And welcome the sugar industry spokeswomen to be introduced at the meeting. Markwart said 16 of the 18 women who chose to speak out on biotechnology will be in attendance. Collectively the women grow sugarbeets in 10 states. They will engage consumers online and face-to-face to discuss biotech sugarbeets. Their goal is to combat the misinformation about biotechnology through social media.
Dr. Adrianne Massey, managing director of science and regulatory affairs for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization is slated to join the spokeswomen and talk about their efforts.
Massey also will discuss the submission made by the U.S. Beet Sugar Industry to the National Research Council Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops. The committee is currently reviewing many aspects of the use of genetic engineering in production agriculture.
In the submission, people within the sugar industry convey their collective views and experiences in the development and commercialization of H7-1 Roundup Ready glyphosate tolerant sugarbeets.
The committee is targeting release of its report in the late spring or early summer of 2016.