League of Women Voters, Santa Maria Valley, voter information forum on Prop 37, Oct 8, 2012

 

Ron Whitehurst Talk

Dulanie Ellis Talk

Video of both sides

THANKS

We really appreciate that the Santa Maria League of Women Voters thinks this initiative is important enough to hold this voter education forum. Thank you all for coming! There is a lot of high quality food produced in this area so we are naturally interested in how this bill will affect us.


INTRO

I've been interested in genetically engineered foods since 1994 when they were first commercialized. My interest while I was studying for a degree in biology was cellular differentiation at the molecular level so I immediately wondered, how does the DNA make proteins in a predictable way when you insert new genes into the sequence?


My love for biology and FOOD took me on a path to work in organic agriculture whose goal is to produce food in harmony with nature. My wife and I operate a family farm that raises beneficial insects for biological pest control. We advise farmers how to use organic methods including the conservation of beneficial insects. Organic farming is about natural methods and genetically engineered crops aren't natural.


REASONS TO WANT TO KNOW


Whether you use organic or conventional methods, it should concern you that the biotech industry now has a monopoly on the best high-yielding varieties of seed. Farmers who want non-GMO seed can't always get it. Marketing and social pressure is resulting in farmers paying more for seeds engineered to tolerate routine applications of herbicide; also, seeds engineered with the Bt gene that makes every cell of the plant into an insecticide that kills caterpillars. The over 300% increase in use of Roundup on herbicide tolerant GMOs results in higher than safe limits of glyphosate in our diets.


My company sells four natural, biological products to control caterpillars. Our customers don't need genetic engineering to produce high yields of quality crops. This is significant for California in that 25% of all organic farmers in the US are in California and organic is second to nonGMO as the fastest growing segments in the food industry.


Without labeling we have no way to know which foods are being grown with these altered genes and contain very high levels of pesticide. Many consumers want to vote with their food dollars to support farmers who reject these methods. This simple labeling initiative is about our fundamental right to know what is in our food.


THE RIGHT TO KNOW


Over ninety percent of consumers polled say they want labeling of genetically engineered food and have been opposed by biotech lobbyists in Congress that spent over a half billion dollars on congressional campaigns to kill labeling bills introduced very year for the past 12 years. Farm Bureau lobbyists recently killed a bill in Sacramento to label genetically engineered salmon. Except for the genetically engineered growth hormone in the milk, there has never been this level of well-financed opposition to put information on a food label. Informed choice is a fundamental right. Consumers are smart enough to learn and choose what they want to eat.


ETHICS OF EXPERIMENTATION


Genetic engineering of food is a new technology. It is not as precise as the genetic engineers say it is. The insertion of one gene results in a 5% difference in the proteins produced by the cell. They cannot predict which ones will change. The process is the problem. It creates mutations that produce foreign substances that pose health risks. Independent scientists' reports contrast with biotech scientists. When there is no conflict of interest, studies show links to allergies, organ damage, and other health problems. The only peer reviewed long-term safety study of Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn links it to mammary tumors, kidney and liver problems, and premature death. Peer reviewed study is the gold standard for establishing what is true in our culture.


In the 15 years since genetically engineered foods have come on the market, we have seen a steady INCREASE in childhood allergies, digestive problems, inflammatory disease, diabetes, and obesity. The alarming rise in autism is interesting because the hypertrophy and the gaps in the gastrointestinal lining of autistic children looks identical to that of rats fed genetically engineered food. Studies are urgently needed to find out why. Some say there is no connection with GE food, but how can we possibly know when they are not labeled?


In science, when humans are used as test subjects, medical ethics require informed consent. Yet for fifteen years Americans have been fed GMO foods without being notified and without their consent. People have a moral right to be informed before they become ‘guinea pigs’ for the food industry.


US & CANADA LAG BEHIND REST OF WORLD


Finally look at the global market. Fifty other countries already label GMO food. More significantly, an increasing number of these countries have severe restrictions or bans against GMO food production or sale. The biotech industry says that food costs will go up. Show me one example of a country where the food price went up more than a trivial amount and where farmers or retailers were harmed.


Expert analysis and the history in other countries proves that each California household will pay less than $2.00 more in a one-time cost resulting from labeling GMO food. And to set the record straight the cost to administer the law will be THREE CENTS per person. (Currently households pay $250 to support GMO crops with their tax dollars.) The cost of ENFORCEMENT through the courts will be less than ONE CENT per person.


The law offers NO incentives to sue for damages. It allows 30 days for a retailer to resolve a labeling problem before a case is heard. But really there is no reason to believe that American food manufacturers won't obey this simple law. There is no reason to believe there will be a slew of lawsuits.


Moreover to clear the smoke screen in the opposition's advertising, the exemptions in the law are for legal and practical reasons. If the exemptions weren't there, do you think Monsanto and Coca-Cola would suddenly support Prop 37? No! They are investing $34 million in advertising with false statements that it's a bad law because it doesn't cover all categories of retail food and beverage.


This is not a ban on GMOs, and it isn’t saying whether genetic engineering is good or bad. It’s simply saying let’s label these foods. Americans should not be unwitting lab rats. On the contrary, California voters can lead in joining the rest of the world, giving consumers the information to know what they’re buying and to make choices for themselves.


******************* End of Talk

Points for rebuttal

 

Farmers

They don't want to farm near Bt corn and cotton and risk genetic contamination. They count on being able to choose their seed. They

count on the microbes in the soil and the insect ecology not being disrupted by known and unknown effects of GE food on the agroecosystem.


Many foods don't contain GMOs. In others the GMO ingredient is very easy to eliminate or replace with other low-cost ingredients.


So farmers who do not want to use GMOs are sometimes having difficulty obtaining nonGMO seed and there is a lot of marketing and social pressure to go along. The use of Roundup and other such herbicides has increased by well over 300%. The active ingredient is called glyphosate. The safe limit of glyphosate in drinking water is 0.1 ppb. There are suggestions that the American diet may now contain two or three times that.


A growing number of peer reviewed scientific studies are showing health risks from eating GMO foods. A number of studies that are paid for by biotech companies say that GE food is safe to eat, but these studies are flawed. A review of safety studies of Aspartame, a Monsanto product, showed that industry funded studies said that Aspartame was safe and independent studies said it is toxic. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. The FDA can not refer to a single independent study that shows that GMO food is safe.


Finally, a long-term, peer-reviewed study was published by Saralini et al, which shows that rats feeding on Roundup Ready corn or low levels of Roundup had significant health problems. The rats fed GMO corn had more liver and kidney problems, tumors and died prematurely. This study lasted 2 years, the usual lifetime of a lab rat, and problems started showing up after 4 months. Earlier studies by biotech companies, were stopped after 3 months, before many problems started showing up.


This is a very solid study which was closely examined by a panel of scientists who have done research in the field, published in the field, and are competent to point out any failings in the study. This is the peer review process.


Some scientists that are cheer leaders for the biotech industry have voiced criticism of some of the details of the study. Whatever they say, the facts of the Saralini study stand: RR corn, variety NK603 makes rats sick.


A couple of genetic engineers reviewed the marketing claims of the biotech companies and found them to be myths - in the light of objective evidence and peer reviewed scientific studies. See their report: GMO Myths and Truths at www.earthopensource.org and a handout in the back.


Monsanto and Dow said that DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and Aspartame are safe. Now they are saying that GMO crops are safe. Somehow that does not reassure me.


GMO crops are said to have a lot of promise, but they have not lived up to that promise. GMO crops have failed, are failing and biotech companies have failed to convince consumers that we want to eat food that is registered as a pesticide or contains an herbicide.


People in 49 other countries already have the right to know if their food is genetically engineered, and we deserve to have the same rights in California. Labeling genetically engineered foods is standard procedure in most of the rest of the industrialized world, including all of Europe, Japan, and even Russia and China. A coalition of people in 15 other states are working on ballot propositions or legislation to label GMOs. We are redefining the market place.


American companies like Coke, Pepsi, Nestle and Kellogg are already required to label genetically engineered food in 49 other countries, yet they won’t do it here in their own country. What are they trying to hide from American consumers?


Prop 37 was initiated by a grandmother with special interests - her grandkids.


It was written by a team of consumers, farmers, lawyers, grocers, distributors and grandparents (not by James Wheaton as some suggest) to cover the majority of GMO foods to which we are exposed.


The authors benefited from the experience of people defending labeling laws around the world against biotech companies.


It had to have a narrow focus to be an initiative. It is a well written law that will be easy to enact and cheap to enforce. Most food producers update their labels yearly, so they will easily change their labels in the 1.5 year transition period. Then, when notified, a grocer will have 30 days to remove mislabeled product from his shelf, or re-label it, before any action would be taken. Lawsuits should be rare.


The opposition is trying to make labeling sound scary, confusing and expensive, but this is about one thing: labels. It’s not rocket science, it’s just labels.


We have the right to know what is in our food. Our declaration of independence states we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To maintain our health and happiness, we need to know which foods will support our health. It shouldn't be up to the food production companies or the government to determine what we should or shouldn't know about the food we are putting in our bodies. Informed choice is the way the free marketplace is supposed to work in a capitalist society.


RVI
I'm Ron Whitehurst, pest control advisor with Rincon-Vitova Insectaries, which has been working with farmers for 60 years to control pests using biological control on a number of crops. For example for corn and cotton there are four levels of biological control for the worm pests. We don't need genetically engineered Bt corn or cotton to control worm pests.


James Wheaton

James Wheaton was engaged to submit the paper work to file the initiative. He did not write it. The opposition uses a false argument, a straw man argument where an aspect of the issue is exaggerated to a ridicules extreme and then made fun of. The team of writers included: Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, a public interest lawyer, farmers, food distributors, retailers, and consumer groups. James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, said that Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for business, so lawsuits should be rare. Lawsuits would only come when a retailer would flagrantly violate the law.

No bounty - no lawyers

No separate beaucracy

Administrated by DPH

New Federal food safety regs require more record keeping

Farmers will be required to keep records (is this new)

Myths

That’s one of the myths put out by the biotech companies. There are a number of common marketing statements that have been evaluated by a couple of genetic engineers and found to be myths.

  • GMOs are laboratory made using technology totally different from natural breeding methods and the GMO technology poses different risks
  • The GE food contains higher levels of toxins, allergens, and substance that depress the immune system.
  • GMO foods have not been adequately tested to ensure safety.
  • GMO crops do not increase yield or return on investment for farmers.
  • GMO crops cause serious problems for farmers, including pesticide resistant superweeds and superworms.
  • GMO crops are not the way to "feed the world".

See GMO Myths and Truths at earthopensource.org.


How to avoid GMO food:


Let's get it labeled and then it will be easy.


The biggest difference most people can make is to avoid corn and soy that is not organically grown or NonGMO Verified. Those are the most ubiquitous GMO ingredients in our food.


HIgh fructose corn syrup and other corn products are suspect of GMO contamination. Corn chips, tortillas and tamales are usually made from field corn which is 80% GMO. GMO sweet corn was just approved by the USDA this year for release into the market. Why should we be concerned? The Bt toxin was found in a peer-reviewed study to be at a level of over 90% in pregnant women and in over 80% of the fetal cord blood. This may have come from food they ate before the blood test, OR from Bt genes that were taken from the Bt corn in the intestinal tract into the gut bacteria in the mothers. This would make those normally healthy bacteria into Bt toxin factories, continuously producing the pesticide in their bodies.


Then there is soy. What would be the biggest concern? The soy fed to infants and children who tend to be more sensitive to foreign proteins. Soy is in baby formula, soy milk, in high protein snacks, like granola bars. Soy lecithin is very common in processed foods as an emulsifier, even in many so called health foods and chocolate.


Most people don't read Latin and don't have time to read all the labels of all the stuff they buy. There is enough concern about these ingredients that everyone has the right to know how to avoid them. We need a simple label that lets people know if GMOs are in their food.


We have the right to know what's in our food.


Information is power and that power belongs to consumers.


We the people are taking back control of our food.

 

American companies like Pepsico, CocaCola, Nestle, Kellogs already label GMO food for marketing in other countries that requires labels. They know how to do this. And they are spending millions to oppose a labeling law. What are they trying to hide?


Wineries voluntarily labeled sulfates in the wine, this didn't increase the price of the wine.


The opposition is trying to make this sound scary, confusing, expensive, but it's simple. It's about one thing. Labels, just labels.


Biotechnology

Requiring labels does not mean someone is against genetic engineering in general. It's just saying that you want to know what you're eating.


The big economic impact is going to be on Monsanto and the other biotech seed companies. 90% of consumers already say they don't want to eat GMOs. Labels will help them avoid it. Grocery stores want to satisfy customers and will order nonGMO products. Farmers will get the idea to not plant GMO crops next year. The only negative from labeling is on the GMO seed monopolies like Monsanto. We call this the free market system.


No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers:

Companies change their labeling all the time, usually once a year, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”


Non-GMO foods are not more expensive than GMO foods, according to Anne Brown, with Scoular, the largest non-GMO grains supplier in North America, and they are readily available.


How many people are looking for work? Who would you take $30K to come up with some numbers that show that labeling GMO foods would make the price of food go up? A Davis prof took the No on 37 campaign up on the offer. His numbers start with some faulty assumptions that replacement non-GMO food would cost more.


Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses:

According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.


When Proposition 37 passes,

it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).


Together, we can make history this November!


None of those countries saw an increase in food prices and no farmers or retailers were harmed. Sale of GMO crops declined. Follow the money, this is the real reason Monsanto and Dow put 11 million into opposing Prop 37.

Dulanie Ellis

 

I'm not a scientist, I'm a concerned citizen and a documentary filmmaker specializing in films about agriculture. I'm an advocate for farmers, for preserving farmland and our ability as a nation to produce our own healthy food. As I've served on agricultural committees and researched for my films for the last 12 years, I have become more and more concerned about GMOs.


It is important to understand that Genetically Modified Organisms are not found in nature. This is not the natural selection from thousands or millions of years of evolution. This is not even the hybridizing of mixing traits within one species. Genetic engineering takes place in a lab, gene splicing between different species of plants, animals, viruses and bacteria. The desired gene characteristic is often attached like a hitchhiker to a virus or bacteria because those are recognizable life forms to the DNA of a plant. But the unintended consequence is that it appears that those viruses and fungi and bacteria continue to grow and replicate in our digestive systems, causing a number of health problems.


I say "appears" because what I find most astounding is that the FDA does not test GMOs for food safety. There has not been one long term human health study done with GMOs. No matter how many times I read this, it continues to shock me. I thought that the FDA and USDA were on our team and watching out for the health and well-being of American citizens. In fact, a food producer does not even have to notify the FDA when bringing a new GMO product to market.


I am particularly alarmed about unintended consequences of genetic engineering -- consequences that the FDA's own scientists warned them about in the 1990s. Their scientists urged utmost precaution and warned that they expected to see brand new toxins created from mixing genes between species, new diseases, loss in nutritional value, increases in food allergies and unknown outcomes. A court case has revealed over 44,000 pages of internal documents that were suppressed by the leadership at the FDA. Instead the FDA leadership came out with a statement that they believe genetically engineered foods to be "generally recognized as safe" and no different than ordinary crops.


When you wonder why this coverup occured, you might consider this, our Food Safety Czar at the FDA is Michael Taylor - former Vice President of Public Policy for Monsanto. For 20 years, Mr. Taylor has alternated between being legal counsel for Monsanto and then going to the USDA, back to Monsant and then on to the FDA. As my grandmother would have said, "the fox is in the hen house."


Monsanto has a history of flawed safety assessments. Monsanto claimed DDT was safe when they introduced it, only to find out that they were wrong. Monsanto claimed that 2-4d, a key chemical element we know as Agent Orange, was safe, only to cause generations of deformed Vietnemese children and diseases in our veterans. 


The unintended consequences of 50 years of pesticides and herbicides is that our soils have been depleted of microbial life that feeds the nutrients to the plants, and then to us. Our waters are polluted to the point that there is a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from pesticide runoff down the Mississippi. Pesticides are now routinely found in the urine samples of urban and rural populations alike. 


When GMOs were introduced in the 1990s, they too were also touted as safe by Monsanto, and farmers wanted them because they were promised a reduction in pesticide use and greater yields. For awhile that was true, but the well documented consequences longer term are that super weeds and superbugs have evolved in just 20 years that are now RoundUp Resistant, requiring far more pesticides and reduced yields.


Because there are no long-term human health studies, we must rely on the short-term studies, as well as observing livestock fed GMO grains. Those results are, frankly, shocking / alarming. Infertility and reproductive failure are increasing in dairy cows, cattle and pigs to rates as high as 45-55% in herds. Autopsies reveal an new microbe in the umbilical cords of miscarried livestock, the same newly-discovered microbe that clings to the roots of plants that are sprayed with RoundUp. And it turns out that the Bt pesticide toxin that was spliced into Sweet Corn sold at WalMart to repel pests does not get destroyed in our digestive system, as promised by Monsanto and our FDA. No, that Bt toxin showed up in 93% of pregnant women and 80% of their babies umbilical cords in a Canadian study. Again their assessment of safety is incorrect, and shows a conflict of interest in government.


You don't need to know all the science .... if you're like me you just want to know that there IS science, solid independent peer-reviewed science to prove that these GE foods are safe before you eat them. And until we know that, we don't know enough. And until we do know enough, I want my food labeled so I can make the choice for myself about what I eat and what I feed my children.


Labeling is easy. They label salt, trans fats, calories and allergens like peanuts, why not G.E. ingredients? They do it for the 61 other countries who demand labels - like the European Union, Australia, India and even China!! This number is up 20% since we started this first law in US. Use those same labels here in California!


Don't let the TV ads fool you. It's a well-written proposition with easy compliance and protections for food producers and food consumers alike.


I simply want my food labeled. Don't you?