Heres What The Grocery Manufacturers Association Just Said: Grocers Say GMO Labeling Would Increase FARM Costs [Ric:!?] Sean Ellis-April 2, 2014 9:38AM A Grocery Manufacturers Association official told Idaho lawmakers that mandatory GMO food labeling requirements would significantly increase costs to farmers and consumers. He also said the safety of GMO food has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. BOISE — If individual states start requiring the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, it would have a negative impact on agriculture and consumers, according to a representative of the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association. “The cost of farming and food (would) be impacted,” John Hewitt told Idaho lawmakers near the end of the recent legislative session. Food products grown using GMO technology require fewer pesticides, less water and they keeps production costs down while increasing crop yields, Hewitt said. What happens with the GMO labeling issue will determine the ability of farmers to use modern technology, he added. Hewitt said every credible study on the issue has shown that food with GMO ingredients is safe and there are no negative health effects associated with their use. “The use of genetically modified ingredients is safe for people and for our planet,” he said. Genetically engineered food has been declared safe by the USDA, American Medical Association, World Health Organization, Health Canada, the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other domestic and global food safety agencies, he said. [Without ANy Independent Testing-SO-HOw Did They Decide it was SAFE? Monsanto SAID it was, and former Monsanto Employee-now FDA Food Czar, Michael Taylor, said, Okay, then.] “The debate should be over but that’s not necessarily the case,” Hewitt said. “There is still debate and discussion (over) whether these products are safe.” GMO technology has facilitated an agricultural revolution in the United States but those advances are threatened by an attempt to pass bills that would create a patchwork of labeling requirements on the state and local level, he said. About 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States contains ingredients that have been genetically modified and mandatory labeling requirements would increase costs significantly, he said. He said recent studies show that a mandatory GMO labeling requirement in California would increase costs to that state’s food producers by $1.2 billion a year and it would increase the average family’s grocery bill by more than $400 a year. According to one of the studies[ So...WHERES the LINK to that vaulted study?], conducted by Northbridge, an environmental management consultant, some farmers would switch to growing non-GMO crops and those that don’t would risk losing sales “as food companies search elsewhere for non-GE ingredients.” Because GMO technology has reduced the cost of growing certain crops, those farmers’ cost of production would increase as they are forced to apply more herbicides and other chemical inputs. Hewitt said the GMA, which represents more than 300 food and beverage companies, is opposed to state and local efforts to impose mandatory GMO labeling requirements. The group believes the nation’s food labeling laws should be determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is pushing federal legislation that would accomplish that. [This WAS the provence of the FDA, so I guess they feel having TWO Alphabet Agencies under the jackboot would be BETTER for their BOTTOMLINE.] The FDA’s evaluation of biotech food focuses only on its characteristics, not the method used to develop it, he said.[And THAT seems to be WORKING SO WELL...AHEM.] Hewitt pointed out the FDA has already found GMO food products to be safe and said giving that agency food labeling authority would be fair to farmers, manufacturers and consumers. In response to a question from Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, Trent Clark, director of public and government affairs for Monsanto, said scientists have only begun to explore the potential benefits of genetically engineered technology. Andrus, a sheep rancher and chairman of the House Agricultural Affairs Committee, asked Hewitt whether there would be further advances in GMO technology and Hewitt deferred to Clark, who was in the audience. “We’ve barely touched the edge of the iceberg, Mr. Chairman,” Clark said. - See more at: capitalpress/Idaho/20140402/grocers-say-gmo-labeling-would-increase-farm-costs#sthash.x7Td6kl0.dpuf To Which, I replied on TATT: Every point raised in this article is totally false, including but not limited to: A. We use less Pesticide, Herbicide, less water. The first to are up to 4-5 TIMEs what was used ten years ago and climbing. If theres less water used, its mostly because all the fracking around the country is beating the Farmers to the punch. B. Credible Studies about LABELLING? Really? Because not only is Labeling a fact in over 70 MORE Civilized Nations, but the same companies whining about it ALSO produce their products GMO free, as well. Also, the FDA has just issued a requirement to CHANGE ALL labels, and since theyll all be redone, I doubt adding Made Including Part or Gm Ingredients would make one iota of cost change. We DO pay attention, continue doing our own research, and have been connecting the dots for a while now, and dont buy into any of this. Trent Clarks pronouncement is right on the target, as current deployments of Corporate Biotechnology is SO FAR from the actual leading edge of the REAL Science, it can barely call itself that with a straight face...theyre over 40 YEARS behind the times! REAL Biotech works with cellular expression on a quantum level and has passed well beyond the need to insert material into the nuclei of target/host cells to either fine-tune or totally synthesize expression. The latest development is XNA, a synthetic DNA that is more easily controlled, can evolve like regular DNA, and can be created to serve custom purposes. This sounds like it should be a dream come true for Monsanto & friends, who remain bastions of DNA/RNA/RNAi insertion protocols. Some of us are beginning to consider there are OTHER purposes for this than simple weed or pest control, as the medical issues continue to mount, obesity becomes epidemic, and brain diseases abound. Since, like the vaunted studies, this doesnt exist, make one yourself: Create a graph starting in 1993-the year GM Crops were first seriously deployed. Run it parallel, year by year[month by month if you have a good computer and a lot of patience] with the emergence of new, the increasing of existing, and the added complexities of human disease, as well as chronic syndromes, and birth defects. I assure you its a compelling and eye-opening study you just did on your own-after which, like me, youll hear all the whining and brouhaha of the Big Ag/Chemical Giants and scratch your head in wonder, then in disbelief, and finally in disgust at such lazy poor Cigarette Science touted as state of the art, at all the promises made and unfulfilled, the escalating cost to the taxpayer and farmer to keep it going, while only the Oligarchs at the top are really making out. Besides, Grocers market and sell whatever products their Corporate heads can get the best deal on, which right now, IS food in the US thats industrially created-its a no-brainer its already subsidized, which makes it difficult to compete with in a cost-based analysis. Before Mexico outlawed Monsanto corn, they were lobbying for subsidies in the Mexican Government, hoping that as it has, in the past, been as malleable as our own, it could get the cane syrup which is a primary ingredient in Mexican food and drink replaced with corn syrup-preferably cheaper Monsanto corn syrup. That effort just tanked, and as I drink only Mexican Coke, I was ecstatic. We are locked in to GM sugar and corn syrup, because the Sugar Lobby keeps regularly sources of sugar priced double what they would be elsewhere within the confines of your Corporation friendly Farm Bill. Look at the illustrations, make the chart-wake up.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:30:55 +0000