RESOLUTION # 3 LABELING OF FOODS WITH BIO-ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS

Similar documents
(Gives background and presents arguments for both sides) by P. Byrne, D. Pendell, & G. Graff* Quick Facts...

RE: Proposed Rule Questions Under Consideration for GMO Disclosure and Labeling

Genetically Engineered Foods

Knowledge Exchange Report. Economic Impact of Mandatory Overtime on New York State Agriculture

Education Fund. A Year of Progress: More Choices and More Information on GMOs

H 5849 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

2016 Annual Meat Conference February 21-23, 2016 Nashville, Tennessee

HUNGER AND ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION DPG

Testimony of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Submitted to the California Assembly Committee on Agriculture.

June 27, United States Senate Washington, D.C Re: GMO Labeling Bill - OPPOSE. Dear Senators,

RE: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Derived From Genetically Engineered Plants; Guidance for Industry; Availability

Keywords: GMOs; biotechnology; labeling policy; trade disputes.

Rules and Regulations on GMO-derived food products in the European Union Lynn Insall UK Food and Drink Federation

FDA FSMA Timeline. July 29, 2009 House version passed. Nov. 30, 2010 Senate version passed. Dec. 19, 2010 Senate revised version passed

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association Future of American Egg Industry Conference UEP-HSUS Initiative for Federal Legislation What It Means to the Industry

WHOLE FOODS MARKET GMO Labeling Policy

THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT

What Is the Farm Bill?

Regulatory and GM Food Safety Assessment Perspectives: Kenya Prof. Theophilus M. Mutui, PhD Chief Biosafety Officer

MEMORANDUM. I. States Have the Right to Require Food Labeling

U.S. Political Activity & Public Policy Report 2012

National Organic Coalition

The USDA Organic Label for Pet Food and Livestock Feed Where are we Now, and Where are we Headed?

Organic Foods: Understanding Organic Food Labels, Benefits, and Claims

Other examples: tourism (lodging, car rental, etc.), tobacco and alcoholic beverage excise, real estate transfer

Ministry of Agriculture BRIEFING NOTE FOR MINISTER FOR INFORMATION

IS THE US FDA REGULATION AND EVALUATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEEERED FOODS SUFFICIENT? Teresa Marek FOOD REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Ethical Dilemma Analysis Paper Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Thomas J. Shaw Jr Northeastern University March 26, 2017

PRO/CON: Putting GMO labels on food

U.S. Political Activity & Public Policy Report 2011

RESOLUTION # 5 LIVESTOCK IN NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURE

In the upcoming November election,

Non-GMO Project Product Verification Guide

Should we label GM products in India? Bioseed Research India Paresh Verma Director Research

Vision Growth Balance. All About Organics Food that matters

Al Gore s 2006 documentary

NGFA Mission and Purpose

The Consequences of the Commercialization of GMOs in Africa. Africa s infamous food security crisis is linked to it s severely underperforming

Making the Case for Organic. Marty Mesh, Executive Director

GET TO KNOW GMOS A RESOURCE FOR YOU

The Fertilizer Institute. The Agricultural Retail Situation

Post-Market Oversight of Biotech Foods

April Ensuring Safe Food from Production to Consumption

Food and Agricultural Organization Background Guide

Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing

Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon: Status and Implications

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Farmer s Market Legislation & Food Safety Regulations

FSMA and Grain Handlers

background info: organic agriculture

Unapproved genetically modified wheat from Monsanto found in Oregon field

Food Industry Forces at Play A Conversation with Dan Phipps, CEO OF RED RIVER FOODS GROUP

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE AT THE. CHS Inc. December 5-6, 2013 RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

R-CALF USA Comments in Docket No. FSIS : Cooperative Inspection Programs: Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products

The Food Safety Modernization Act: What Exporters to the U.S. Need to Know. Erik R. Lieberman Prepared for AgroBalt 2014 April 4, 2014

Contents. In this pack you will find: Contents page (version 1. Mar2017) Non-GMO Project Proof Points (version 1. Mar2017)

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS

New technologies and food labelling: the controversy over labelling of foods derived from genetically modified crops

Steers weighing 500 pounds and over, as of January 1, 2018, totaled 16.4 million head, down slightly from January 1, 2017.

The Latest News on Energy Efficiency as a Resource in New England

Chain for Sustainable Livestock Production is timely especially

Consolidation and Regionalization Efforts

GMO and Food Labeling. Final Reflective Essay. Sushovan Sircar CCTP Fall 2015

STUDY GUIDE ARE GMOS GOOD OR BAD? KEY TERMS: genes DNA genetically-modified

Organic mushroom production

Renewable Power and Energy Efficiency: Policies in Iowa and Other States

Radioactive Waste Management (Joint with the Agriculture & Energy Committee)

Facts About Texas and U.S. Agriculture

Maryland s Regulatory Approach to Nutrient Management

The USDA BioPreferred Program as a Driver for Biobased Product Producers

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES FOR BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS

White Tags. Alden Hathaway. SVP Business Development. Energy Efficiency Certificates

World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology May, 2014

Seasonal High Tunnels. Conservation Benefits Interim Practice Standard Financial Assistance Guidance

Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in Canada and the United States

Milk Production. January Milk Production up 2.7 Percent

Agricultural Outlook Forum For Release: Monday, February 23, 1998 SETTING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL TRADE

Economics Challenge Online State Qualification Practice Test. 1. An increase in aggregate demand would tend to result from

USDA-APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services Janet L. Bucknall Associate Deputy Administrator

AP Exam Review. Chapter 3-4

CAN REGIONAL, ORGANIC AGRICULTURE FEED THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY? A Case Study for Hamburg and North Germany

Page 1 of 13 Canadians unclear on definition of GMOs, but want mandatory GMO labeling anyway

Farmers Markets: Rules, Regulations and Reforms Webinar on current and future farmers market regulations

Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon and Montana: Status and Implications

Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology & Sustainability Webcast for Food and Health Professionals

Managing Fresh From Farm to Fork

Guideline n 1: The ECOCERT SA NOP Certification System

Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE LEGISLATION OREGON Workplace scheduling bill sent to governor s desk (Jul. 5, 2017)

RE: Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submission

Introduction. The Purpose of the Guidance Document

September 9, Mr. Mark A. Thierer Chief Executive Officer OptumRx 1600 McConnor Parkway Schaumburg, IL

Resolution for Super Delegates to Support Candidate Who Wins Caucus Passed 5/1/16 at Kitsap County Democratic Convention

William C. Templeton, Jr. President, Grassland Advisory Services, Inc. 800 Brook Hill Drive, Lexington, KY 40502

GMO 101 Workshop. February 10, 2016

Federal Pesticide Laws

Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3990 Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee

some of the effects of the chemicals used in farming

CHAPTER 8.18: PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION

WRI POLICY NOTE. CLIMATE:AGRICULTURE No. 1

Transcription:

RESOLUTION # 3 LABELING OF FOODS WITH BIO-ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, some consumers have expressed a desire to be informed on package labels whether a raw or processed food product they are buying contains ingredients produced using biotechnology or genetic modification; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration s stated policy on Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, first published in 1992, is geared toward ensuring that relevant scientific, safety and regulatory issues are resolved prior to introducing these new plant varieties into the marketplace; and WHEREAS, the FDA holds the position that there is no significant nutritional or compositional difference between foods produced with ingredients using biotechnology or genetic modification and their conventional counterparts; and WHEREAS, the American Medical Association has reaffirmed a policy statement that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bio-engineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education. ; and WHEREAS, meaningful food labeling includes information on nutrient content, chemical composition, potential allergy concerns or potential toxicity concerns; and WHEREAS, labeling that delivers no pertinent information about the quality and safety of food, and is included solely to distinguish production methods, is not a meaningful way to enhance consumer choice; and WHEREAS, a survey conducted in 2012 by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) showed most Americans remain very supportive of existing federal foodlabeling laws regarding foods produced with bio-engineered ingredients and that very few cite biotechnology as an information need on a food label; and - 9 -

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 WHEREAS, some consumers, food marketers, vendors, retailers and producers have called for mandatory, state-imposed labeling of food products made with bioengineered ingredients that would differ from what is required by federal law; and WHEREAS, public questions on the ballots in Colorado and Oregon in the November 2014 election that, if approved, would have required labels on foods made with GMO ingredients, were defeated by voters, as were ballot questions in the November 2012 election in California and the state of Washington in 2013; and WHEREAS, a bill requiring labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients was passed in Connecticut and signed by that state s Governor, but it will not take effect until four other states pass similar laws, including one that shares a border with Connecticut, and Northeastern states with a total population of 20 million people, based on the 2010 Census, pass similar measures; and WHEREAS, Maine s legislature has passed a similar bill, but that law won t become effective until five nearby states, including New Hampshire, pass similar labeling laws; and WHEREAS, New Hampshire has a bill pending, with action expected in early- 2015, that would require labeling of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients (although not those made from animals fed GMO feed) and would prohibit foods with any GMO ingredients from being labeled natural ; and WHEREAS, the FDA already has guidelines, first published in 2001, to direct those producers who wish to voluntarily label food products as either being produced or not produced with bioengineered ingredients; and WHEREAS, the National Organic Program within the USDA excludes the use of bioengineered ingredients as a prerequisite to using the USDA s Organic marketing seal, thus providing another avenue for consumers to choose products; and - 10 -

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 WHEREAS, because of biotechnology, pesticide use in American agriculture between 1996 and 2010 has been reduced by 443 million kilograms in that time span; and WHEREAS, according to the United Nations, the world population currently stands at more than 7 billion people, and by the year 2050, 9.1 billion people will inhabit the planet, requiring farmers to double the annual amount of food that is produced as compared to today; and WHEREAS, efforts to feed this ever-expanding population will take all the technological innovation that the world s agricultural community can muster; and WHEREAS, this massive increase in demand for food is, in part, addressed and alleviated by U.S. agricultural operators producing crops that are bio-engineered to be drought-, pest- and disease-resistant, without which crop production would be greatly reduced, leading to higher food costs worldwide; and WHEREAS, pending legislation in the New Jersey Assembly and Senate would create mandatory labeling of products as being made with bio-engineered products (if the product contains more than 1 percent bio-engineered ingredients); and WHEREAS, rather than a state-by-state, patchwork approach of laws regarding GMO labeling, this issue would be better left to a federal measure that would apply equally to all states; and WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in New Jersey (A-1359, S-2496, S- 91) which mandate the labeling of foods containing ingredients from bio-engineered crops and/or animals products from livestock raised on bio-engineered feed; and WHEREAS, a bill pending in Congress (HR-4432) would establish a voluntary federal labeling standard for genetically engineered foods; and - 11 -

73 74 75 WHEREAS, the delegates to the 99 th State Agricultural Convention directed Rutgers University s New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station to create a white paper examining the issues involved in mandatory GMO labeling. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the delegates to the 100th State Agricultural Convention, assembled in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on February 4-5, 2015, do hereby express our opposition to the bills currently pending in the New Jersey Legislature (A-1359, S-2496, S-91) that aim to mandate labeling of food products as being produced with bio-engineered ingredients. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we believe the current federal regulations regarding voluntary labeling of products as either using bio-engineered ingredients or not using them are sufficient to educate consumers who are interested in this issue about which products they may wish to buy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge Congress to pass HR-4432 to extend voluntary labeling of foods without GMO ingredients, as we believe the issue of labeling for GMO ingredients is best addressed at the federal level in order to avoid a patchwork of varying regulations at the state level, which will lead to multiple packaging labels needed for products that are sold in more than one state or region, potential disruption to interstate commerce, and potential confusion among shoppers who cross state lines to do their shopping. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we commend Rutgers University s New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) on its work to produce a summary white paper examining the scientific issues associated with the use of GMOs in agricultural production, including a review of scientific literature about the known health effects, if any, of humans consuming foods containing GMO ingredients, and an assessment of the economic impacts to farmers of requiring labeling of products containing GMO - 12 -

99 100 101 ingredients and the subsequent demand for non-gmo products from farmers, which can be found on-line at: http://sebsnjaesnews.rutgers.edu/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/gmo-crops-2014-bih-final.pdf - 13 -