Millions of out-of-state dollars are flooding California in an effort to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods and potentially change how crops are grown across the nation.
If approved by voters Nov. 6, 40 to 70 percent of food sold in grocery stores would be marked to indicate the product's genetic makeup was altered in a laboratory. When Europe implemented a similar measure in 1997, growers and companies generally stopped the practice rather than carry the label.
A product labeled with Non Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is sold at the Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins store in Los Feliz district of Los Angeles.
DAMIAN DOVARGANES, AP
ADVERTISEMENT
Event information
A Prop. 37 debate is scheduled for Friday at Chapman University in Orange. The free event takes place 3-5 p.m. in Beckman Hall, Room 404, 1 University Drive.
The debate will be moderated by Alan McHughen, a UC Riverside professor and consumer advocate.
The event is sponsored by the Chapman University Food Science Club. For more information, visit chapman.edu/scst/
news-and-events/
prop-37-debate.aspx
California would be the first state in the U.S. to require such labeling. Marketing for genetically engineered foods also would be forbidden from using the word "natural."
Opponents of the proposition say genetically engineered foods undergo rigorous testing and are not harmful to consumers. They have raised $34.5 million, according to Maplight, a nonpartisan research group.
The largest donation, $7.1 million, is from the Missouri-based Monsanto company. Monsanto is a major producer of genetically engineered seeds and of Roundup, which is used on crops engineered to withstand the herbicide.
"I'm motivated to go against Prop. 37 because it's anti-scientific," said UCLA plant biologist Bob Goldberg. "It's no different to me than people not getting a vaccine because they think it might be responsible for causing autism. Am I for consumers' right to know? Absolutely. But labeling has to have a purpose. We use labeling, like with cigarettes, for things that might be potentially harmful."
Backers have raised $4.1 million, but they have attracted some well-known national support. Texas-based Whole Foods Market endorsed the measure. Author Michael Pollan, an outspoken critic of how America produces food, wrote a piece in The New York Times about how passage could change the politics of food.
"It's just a molecular structure our bodies aren't designed to eat," said Kerne Erickson, a Mission Viejo artist, who helped collect signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. "These are literally life forms that have never existed. This is not just making hybrid tomatoes."
Genetically engineered foods were developed to give plants greater resistance to disease or the ability to withstand pests. They differ from traditional plant breeding because specific genes are spliced to transfer desirable traits more quickly or to introduce traits that could not be achieved by standard practice.
The most common crops are corn and soybeans, as well as canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets and zucchini, according to the state's legislative analyst. Engineered corn is used to produce high-fructose corn syrup, a main ingredient in soda and many common foods such as bread, ketchup, salad dressings and yogurt.
The crops undergo testing for allergens and toxins. Three federal agencies regulate genetically engineered crops and food ? the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
A UC Davis report acknowledges the controversy over genetically engineered food, but it concludes that so far evidence of greater risk from their consumption has not been found.
The World Health Organization says future engineering is likely to focus on drought resistance and increasing nutrients.
"GM (genetically modified) foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health," WHO says on its website.
But such assurances don't satisfy the health and environmental concerns of backers of Prop. 37.
Siri Adams, a single mother and student from Laguna Beach, said she can't afford to buy strictly certified organic food, which does not include genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
"We label water, we label soy products or things that may contain nuts," said Adams, 27. "Why shouldn't we label things that may contain GMOs?"
Meanwhile, a different kind of labeling has popped up in response.
The Non-GMO Project, a Washington state nonprofit, verifies the lack of genetically modified ingredients in food items ranging from tofu to cereal. Manufacturers can then affix a non-GMO seal to their products.
Erickson, the Prop. 37 supporter from Mission Viejo, worries that organic crops can be contaminated by genetically modified crops.
"The thing that got me out of my studio and on the streets is this: You cannot contain the GMO crops in a field once the pollen blows in the wind," said Erickson, 66. "We're creating unintended tainting of the gene pool of the environment."
Goldberg, who is a signed opponent in the voter information guide, said genetically modified crops are the most tested plants that have ever existed.
He said the labeling movement in Europe resulted from an effort by organic farmers, as well as anti-globalization sentiment aimed at companies like Monsanto.
"All of the foods that we eat in the grocery store ? the broccoli, the cauliflower, the cabbage, the tomatoes, the corn and the soybeans ? have been engineered by humankind's ingenuity over many, many millennia," he said. "Modern genetic engineering is really an extension of that."
Contact the writer: Twitter: @cperkes 714-796-3686 or cperkes@ocregister.com
Source: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/genetically-374572-engineered-crops.html
emmy rossum jay z and beyonce the big chill tony blankley charles barkley beyonce troy polamalu
No comments:
Post a Comment