Name: Chan Tsz Wing Tutorial Group.

: LA3
Student No.: 54447153 Group: Week 12

Article 1
A Flawed Approach to Labeling Genetically Modified Food

The Senate is expected to vote as early as Thursday on a bill that would require
businesses to label genetically modified foods. Unfortunately, it would allow
companies to use confusing electronic codes for scanning instead of simple, clear
labels.

This bill, a bipartisan compromise negotiated by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of

Kansas, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, is being pushed
through Congress because some lawmakers from farm states want to pre-empt a
Vermont law that requires labeling for some genetically modified foods that went into
effect on July 1 (Vermont is giving companies six months to comply) and to prevent
other states from enacting similar laws. The Senate bill follows an failed effort in
March to block state labeling laws. The House passed a bill last year that would pre-
empt states from enforcing such laws.

Cereal for sale in Montpelier, Vermont. Credit Melanie Stetson Freeman/The

Christian Science Monitor, via AP
While most scientists say that genetically modified foods do not pose a risk to human
health, consumers should have a right to more information about what they are eating.
Polls have found that a vast majority of Americans favor mandatory labels. Dozens of
countries, including all 28 members of the European Union and Australia, already
require similar disclosures.

Researchers have found that labels do not dissuade people from consuming
genetically engineered food, which has been a big worry of farm groups and
businesses. It is no surprise then that some companies, like Campbell Soup, have
voluntarily agreed to label their products.

1
The biggest problem with the Senate bill is that instead of requiring a simple label,
as the Vermont law does it would allow food companies to put the information in
electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with smartphones or at scanners
installed by grocery stores. The only reason to do this would be to make the
information less accessible to the public.

Another problem is that the bill might not cover some kinds of genetic engineering.
The Food and Drug Administration warned that the bill would result in a somewhat
narrow scope of coverage for example, food that includes oil made from
genetically engineered soybeans might not need to be labeled.

The bills sponsors, however, contend that under the Department of Agricultures
analysis, the bill would require labeling of products that contain genetically
engineered soybeans and refined oils. This lack of clarity is troubling, and certainly
needs to be resolved. Exempting large categories of genetically modified foods would
make the labels useless.

In addition to Vermont, labeling laws have been passed in Connecticut and Maine, but
those measures will go into effect only if neighboring states adopt similar legislation.
Clearly, a strong federal standard would be preferable to a patchwork of state rules.
But the Senate bill needs more work.

2
Article 2

General information about GM foods

People have been manipulating the genetic make-up of plants and animals for
countless generations. This is referred to as traditional cross breeding and involves
selecting plants and animals with the most desirable characteristics (e.g. disease
resistance, high yield, good meat quality) for breeding the next generation.

Todays techniques use new ways of identifying particular characteristics and

transferring them between living organisms. For example, it is now possible to make a
copy of a particular gene from the cells of a plant, animal or microbe, and insert the
copy into the cells of another organism to give a desired characteristic.

Foods derived from genetically modified organisms are called GM foods. All of the
GM foods approved so far are from GM plants, for example corn plants with a gene
that makes them resistant to insect attack, or soybeans with a modified fatty acid
content that makes the oil better suited for frying. Plants that use less water to grow
have also been developed so they are more suitable for changing climatic conditions.
How are GM foods regulated?
GM foods are regulated under Standard 1.5.2 Food produced using Gene
Technology, in the Food Standards Code. The standard has two provisions
mandatory pre-market approval (including a food safety assessment) and mandatory
labelling requirements. This standard ensures that only assessed and approved GM
foods enter the food supply. Approved GM foods are listed in Schedule 26 of the Food
Standards Code. Anyone seeking to amend the Code to include a new GM food
should refer to the Application Handbook.

Not every approved GM food enters the marketplace. Many GM crops approved for
use as food, are grown for animal feed and some GM approved plants dont make it to
market because of a variety of reasons, for example if they are not commercially
viable.

In Australia, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) oversees the
development and environmental release of GM organisms under the Gene Technology
Act 2000. In New Zealand, similar functions are undertaken by the Environmental
Protection Authority, under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO)
Act 1996.

3
Article 3

A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart States on Food Labels

The Senate could soon join the House to try to make it harder for consumers to know
what is in their food by prohibiting state governments from requiring the labeling of
genetically modified foods. This is a bad idea that lawmakers and the Obama
administration should oppose.
In July, Vermont will become the first state to require the labeling of genetically
modified food. Many food companies and farm groups say such laws are problematic
because they could dissuade consumers from buying foods that federal regulators and
many scientists say pose no risk to human health. But that is an unfounded fear and
states should be free to require labels if they want to.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is considering a bill by its chairman, Pat Roberts,
Republican of Kansas, that would prohibit state labeling laws. The committee is likely
to approve it, primarily with Republican votes. The House passed a similar bill last
summer along party lines.
There is no harm in providing consumers more information about their food. A study
published in the journal Food Policy in 2014 found that labels about genetic
modification did not influence what people thought about those foods. Some
companies are deciding on their own to increase the information they provide to
consumers without fear of losing sales. Campbell Soup said last month that it would
begin voluntarily disclosing whether its soups, juices and other products had
genetically modified ingredients. Around the world, such labeling is commonplace,
with 64 countries requiring it, including all 28 members of the European Union,
Japan, Australia, China and Brazil.

Various polls have found that about 90 percent of Americans favor mandatory labels
for genetically modified foods. Several states are or have considered labeling laws.
Connecticut and Maine have passed laws that would require labeling when nearby
states adopt similar legislation. Efforts to require labeling in California and
Washington State have been defeated by aggressive campaigns by the food industry.

Usually, Republicans in Congress are eager to give states more power to set policy in
areas like environmental protection, health care and social services when they think
that legislatures and governors will weaken regulations or cut spending to help the
poor. In this case, however, they want to take power away from states that want to
impose new rules that their residents support. The only thing these lawmakers seem to
favor consistently is protecting corporate interests.

4
Article 4

GMO Food: An Overview

For centuries, farmers were able to use generations worth of knowledge to breed
seeds and livestock for their most desirable traits. However, technological innovation
has gradually made this method of breeding nearly obsolete. Today, most soybeans,
corn and cotton have been genetically engineeredaltered with inserted genetic
material or altered in the laboratory in ways that cant be achieved with traditional
breeding techniquesto exhibit traits that repel pests or withstand the application of
herbicides. Genetically engineered crops are also commonly referred to as genetically
modified organisms, or GMOs.
Mergers and patent restrictions have increased the market power of biotechnology
companies like Monsanto. The onslaught of genetic engineering has not only
diminished the ability of farmers to practice their own methods of seed selection, but
also turned another sector of agriculture into a business monopolized by a few
corporations.

Farmers, who now depend on the few firms that sell seeds and affiliated
agrochemicals, face higher prices and patent infringement lawsuits if a patent is
allegedly violated. Genetic contamination is a serious threat to the livelihoods of non-
GMO and organic farmers who bear the financial burden for these incidents.

GMO crops can take a toll on agriculture and surrounding wildlife as well. The
environmental effects of GMO crops include intensified agrochemical use and
pollution, increased weed and insect resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and gene
flow between GMO and non-GMO crops.

Once GMO products are on the market, no clear on-package labeling is required. This
means that U.S. consumers blindly eat and drink GMO ingredients every day and are
not given the knowledge or choice to do otherwise. Several studies point to the health
risks of GMO crops and their associated agrochemicals, but proponents of the
technology promote it as an environmentally responsible, profitable way for farmers
to feed a growing global population. Yet the only ones experiencing any benefits from
GMO crops are the few, massive corporations that are controlling the food system at
every step and seeing large profit margins.

New technologies like genetic engineering create uncertainties and risk that
should be carefully evaluated rather than being rapidly pushed onto the market. The
existing regulatory framework for GMO foods simply does not measure up. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug
Administration have failed to protect the environment, the food system or public
health from GMO foods.

5
Sources
Food & Water Watch. (2016, June 23). GMO Food: An Overview. Retrieved
April 03, 2017, from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/gmo-food-
overview

General information about GM foods. (2016, March). Retrieved April 03,

2017, from
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/gmoverview/Pages/defaul
t.aspx

The Editorial Board. (2016, February 25). A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart
States on Food Labels. Retrieved April 03, 2017, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/a-bad-effort-in-congress-to-
thwart-states-on-food-labels.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic
%2FGenetically Modified Food

The Editorial Board. (2016, July 06). A Flawed Approach to Labeling

Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved April 03, 2017, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/opinion/a-flawed-approach-to-labeling-
genetically-modified-food.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGenetically
Modified
Food&action=click&contentCollection=timestopicsion=stream&module=str
eam_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection