Milling & Baking News - July 10, 2012 - 32

Biotechnology 

Bioengineered crop area ﬂat
in United States; controversial California labeling vote eyed
rea planted in the United States in 2012 to the major bioengineered crops — corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets — held about steady with 2011 levels, while interest is growing for wheat. Meanwhile, a November ballot initiative in California that would require labeling of foods containing bioengineered ingredients has caught the food industry’s attention. In one sense, little has changed in the past year as widespread production of key bioengineered crops in the United States and the rest of the world continues, but that may change. A year ago there was focus on attempts to block the use of bioengineered sugar beet seeds in the United States. That case hasn’t yet been settled, possibly pushed to the back burner by opponents as the tide has seemingly swayed in favor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the sugar beet industry. This year the opposition to bioengineered crops appears to have shifted its focus to consumers, pushing for labeling of foods with bioengineered ingredients. In California, voters will decide in November whether to require labeling of some foods made from bioengineered plant and animal products. California’s secretary of state certified “The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” in June after a campaign by labeling proponents gathered nearly one million signatures. Bioengineered labeling initiatives were earlier killed by the California legislature, as well as by legislators in Washington, Connecticut and Vermont, but it’s the first time
32 / July 10, 2012 Milling & Baking News

such a proposal has been put before voters. If voters approve of the measure, labeling or reformulation of thousands of food products would be required and advertising of processed foods that include bioengineered crops could not be labeled as “natural.” Several exemptions would be allowed, including food sold in restaurants for immediate consumption and those certified as organic. Grist, a pro-green, pro-organic and anti-corporate food web site, claims about 90% of Americans want labeling that reflects whether food products contain bioengineered ingredients and that such labeling requirements already exist in most of Europe, China, Brazil and soon India. The web site suggests such labeling may boost sales of organic foods in California because “a labeling requirement would make the contrast between conventional and organic products all the more noticeable.” Some labeling opponents suggest the covert purpose of the initiative may be to increase organic food sales. Grist makes the following observation in a recent posting: “If there is a real worry in the hearts of ‘Big Food’ executives, it’s because they know that what happens in California rarely stays in California. This initiative may cause a wave of G.M.O. labeling laws and referenda to ripple across the country. But it may be even simpler. The packaging that food companies use in California — by far the most populous state in the country and thus the largest market — will likely be the packaging they’ll use elsewhere.” A coalition of agriculture, food, consumer and business groups have

opposed the measure because it would require relabeling and repackaging of most grocery food items and increase costs that ultimately would be borne by consumers and farmers. “G.M. labeling is a solution in search of a non-existent problem,” said Susan Finston, former executive director of the American BioIndustry Alliance. “The labeling question was vigorously debated in the 1990s and it was determined that labeling of new G.M.O. products would be required only if the foods themselves posed a safety concern, not because they differed from more conventional products produced in the usual manner. “It would be far better policy for companies to label the minority of products that appeal to anti-G.M.O. consumers than to try to implement mandatory G.M. labeling. For the conscientious consumer concerned with such matters, that is what they already do. Whole Foods, for example, has all but made an industry out of the practice.” Currently federal law allows voluntary labeling of products that may indicate they are “non-G.M.O.,” although such labeling cannot be misleading. Millions of dollars, some estimate $100 million or more, are expected to be spent in attempts to sway voters ahead of the November vote in California. Meanwhile, several agricultural groups in a recent letter to the U.S. House Appropriations Committee joined to support Section 733 in the 2013 appropriations bill that would give growers assurance bioengineered
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com

http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News - July 10, 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - July 10, 2012