New York Times -
With Washington State on the verge of a ballot initiative that would require labeling of some foods containing genetically engineered ..
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Demonstrators from Safe Food Activists and Concerned Consumers at a protest in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.
By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: January 31, 2013
With Washington State on the verge of a ballot initiative that would
require labeling of some foods containing genetically engineered
ingredients and other states considering similar measures, some of the
major food companies and Wal-Mart, the country’s largest grocery store operator, have been discussing lobbying for a national labeling program.
Executives from PepsiCo, ConAgra and about 20 other major food
companies, as well as Wal-Mart and advocacy groups that favor labeling,
attended a meeting in January
in Washington convened by the Meridian Institute, which organizes
discussions of major issues. The inclusion of Wal-Mart has buoyed hopes
among labeling advocates that the big food companies will shift away
from tactics like those used to defeat Proposition 37 in California last
fall, when corporations spent more than $40 million to oppose the
labeling of genetically modified foods.
“They spent an awful lot of money in California — talk about a lack of
return on investment,” said Gary Hirshberg, co-chairman of the Just
Label It campaign, which advocates national labeling, and chairman of
Stonyfield, an organic dairy company.
Instead of quelling the demand for labeling, the defeat of the
California measure has spawned a ballot initiative in Washington State
and legislative proposals in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and
Missouri, and a swelling consumer boycott of some organic or “natural”
brands owned by major food companies.
Mr. Hirshberg, who attended the January meeting, said he knew of roughly 20 states considering labeling requirements.
“The big food companies found themselves in an uncomfortable position
after Prop. 37, and they’re talking among themselves about alternatives
to merely replaying that fight over and over again,” said Charles
Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University who
attended the meeting.
“They spent a lot of money, got a lot of bad press that propelled the
issue into the national debate and alienated some of their customer
base, as well as raising issues with some trading partners,” said Mr.
Benbrook who does work on sustainable agriculture.
For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States —
like cereals, snacks and salad dressings — have contained ingredients
from plants with DNA that has been manipulated in a laboratory. The Food and Drug Administration,
other regulators and many scientists say these foods pose no danger.
But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating,
popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of
biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from
genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated.
Impending F.D.A. approval of a genetically modified salmon and the Agriculture Department’s consideration of genetically engineered apples have further intensified the debate.
“We’re at a point where, this summer, families could be sitting at their
tables and wondering whether the salmon and sweet corn they’re about to
eat has been genetically modified,” said Trudy Bialic, director of
public affairs at PCC Natural Markets in Seattle. “The fish has really
accelerated concerns.”
Mr. Hirshberg said some company representatives wanted to find ways to
persuade the Food and Drug Administration to proceed with federal
government labeling.
“The F.D.A. is not only employing 20-year-old, and we think obsolete,
standards for materiality, but there is a general tendency on the part
of the F.D.A. to be resistant to change,” he said. “With an issue as
polarized and politicized as this one, it’s going to take a broad-based
coalition to crack through that barrier.”
Neither Mr. Hirshberg nor Mr. Benbrook would identify other companies
that participated in the discussion, but others confirmed some of the
companies represented. Caroline Starke, who represents the Meridian
Institute, said she could not comment on a specific meeting or its
participants.
Proponents of labeling in Washington State have taken a somewhat
different tack from those in California, arguing that the failure to
label will hurt the state’s fisheries and apple and wheat farms. “It’s a
bigger issue than just the right to know,” Ms. Bialic said. “It reaches
deep into our state’s economy because of the impact this is going to
have on international trade.”
A third of the apples grown in Washington State are exported, many of
them to markets for high-value products around the Pacific Rim, where
many countries require labeling. Apple, fish and wheat farmers in
Washington State worry that those countries and others among the 62
nations that require some labeling of genetically modified foods will be
much more wary of whole foods than they are of processed goods.
The Washington measure would not apply to meat or dairy products from
animals fed genetically engineered feed, and it sharply limits the
ability to collect damages for mislabeling.
Mr. Benbrook and consumer advocates say that the federal agencies
responsible for things like labeling have relied on research financed by
companies that produce genetically modified seeds.
“If there is a documented issue with this overseas, it could have a
devastating impact on the U.S. food system and agriculture,” Mr.
Benbrook said. “The F.D.A. isn’t going to get very far with
international governments by saying Monsanto and Syngenta told us these
foods are safe and we believed them.”
Advocacy groups also have denounced the appointment of Michael R.
Taylor, a former executive at Monsanto, as the F.D.A.’s deputy
commissioner for food and veterinary medicine. Morgan Liscinsky, an
F.D.A. spokeswoman, said Mr. Taylor was recused from issues involving
biotechnology.
What has excited proponents of labeling most is Wal-Mart’s participation
in the meeting. The retailer came under fire from consumer advocates
last summer for its decision to sell a variety of genetically engineered
sweet corn created by Monsanto.
Because Wal-Mart is the largest grocery retailer, a move by the company
to require suppliers to label products could be influential in
developing a national labeling program.
“I can remember when the British retail federation got behind labeling
there, that was when things really started to happen there,” said Ronnie
Cummins, founder and national director of the Organic Consumers
Association. “If Wal-Mart is at the table, that’s a big deal.”
Brands like Honest Tea, which is owned by Coca-Cola, have written to the
association, which estimates that 75 percent of products on grocery
shelves contain a genetically modified ingredient, to protest its
“Traitors Boycott,” which urges consumers not to buy products made by
subsidiaries of companies that fought Proposition 37. Consumers have
peppered the Web sites, Facebook pages and Twitter streams of those
companies with angry remarks.
Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream company, announced recently
that it would remove all genetically modified ingredients from its
products by the end of this year. Consumers had expressed outrage over
the money its parent, Unilever, contributed to defeat the California
measure.
The state Legislature in Vermont, where Ben & Jerry’s is based, is
considering a law that would require labeling, as is the General
Assembly in Connecticut. Legislators in New Mexico have proposed an
amendment to the state’s food law that would require companies to label
genetically modified products.
And this month, a senator in Missouri, home of Monsanto, one of the
biggest producers of genetically modified seeds, proposed legislation
that would require the labeling of genetically engineered meat and fish.
“I don’t want to hinder any producer of genetically modified goods,” the
senator, Jamilah Nasheed, who represents St. Louis, said in a news
release. “However, I strongly feel that people have the right to know
what they are putting into their bodies.” COPY http://www.nytimes.com
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário