I-522 ~ Written Interview by DBP

[JoB]

VBD..

so your problem isn’t with labeling?

It’s that this label doesn’t provide enough information?

that sort of blows your economic consequences argument, doesn’t it?

i agree that more information is better..

i prefer to buy Oregon Tilth certified organic foods over those simply labeled organic or certified by another agency because i trust the Oregon Tilth standards…

but i will buy something simply labeled organic over that labeled natural

and i read ingredient lists.

and sometimes.. i know the product doesn’t meet my standards and i buy it anyway…

as a consumer.. i make choices..

and i have a preference towards informed choices.

this may not be the perfect bill…

but it appears to me to be a step in the right direction..

Share This

[maplesyrup]

VBD has a point in that we should be careful with labels. The “organic” label still has lots of flaws in the system (Google it yourself for more info). Producers will find ways around the regulations.

But…perfect is the enemy of good. Maybe it’s better to have a starting point and be able to refine the rules over time than have nothing at all.

BTW would you really buy frozen blackened salmon with penne and marinara and really expect it to be 100% natural/organic/GMO free? Blech.

Share This

[TanDL]

I agree “maplesyrup” regarding perfection and “Blech” as well. :)

Share This

[VBD]

I’ll try to address the concerns above, and be as clear as I can.

Since we’ve all agreed I-522 has the potential to increase food cost and limit the availability of some food products, I am asking what we are getting for that cost. My view is that what we would get is some very vague information about what MIGHT be in the package.

In the thread above, there are several references to other information we get on foods, such as sugar, fat, sodium and vitamins. This information may be very important to some, and not some much to others. But regardless of how important it may be, a legitimate effort is made to assure the information is accurate and useful.

The labels I-522 proposes for processed foods would not be anywhere near as useful, and if the same label type was used for fats, there would be outrage.

Imagine if instead of having the grams of trans-fat, saturated fat, unsaturated fat, and the ingredients that supply that fat (vegetable oil, lard, etc), there was NO MENTION of fat on the nutrition label, but instead a message on the front of the package stating “May be partially made with fat.” REALLY?!!? There MIGHT be some kind of fat in there??

Why would you be willing to pay a premium for that type of information? NO other food information is that ambiguous. Would any of the following be acceptable:

“May be Organic”

“May contain allergens”

“May be Kosher”

“May contain vitamins”

“May contain food coloring”

“May contain carbohydrates”

And to top it off, we will need to pay extra for the privilege of knowing the food “may be partially produced with genetic engineering”.

Listing the GMO information the same way it’s done in Europe, and the same way all other nutrition information is listed in our own country would be cheaper, more informative, more consistent, and more universally acceptable.

I don’t see this as a step in the right direction at all. It’s clearly a step in the wrong direction that would set a precedent for getting around nutrition disclosure laws by simply saying “there might be something here, but we’re not sure what.”

Again I ask, wouldn’t listing the ACTUAL ingredients on the label be MUCH better? If not, why not??

Share This

[Jiggers]

DBP is the expert here.. I want to know what the hell I’m eating. 95% of any store shelf bought product is unhealthy for you. I might as well have a replicator if this is how its gonna be.

Share This

[TanDL]

I DO NOT agree that I-522 has the potential to increase food costs and limit the availability of some foods. I think that’s an argument intended to provoke fear and worry.

Yes, the European way might be better, but we don’t have that kind of proposal in I-522. We DO have an opportunity to begin the process of change – to begin to allow consumers to better know what’s genetically engineered and what isn’t. Do we say that that since I-522 isn’t perfect, we should avoid it and maintain the status quo? Continue forcing consumers to eat what they clearly don’t want to eat because there is no method to inform them?

The Seattle bag law was supposed to drive costs, limit food for poor people, cripple grocers with excessive expense and provide more chances of food poisoning with dirty bags abounding. None of that has happened. I sense the same kind of fear arguments here.

Share This

[VBD]

TanDL, what in posts 11 and 17 above do you think is false? I’m basing my conclusions on what I-522 would mandate. I’m curious hear how you think the requirements can be met at zero cost.

Nobody is forcing consumers to eat anything. Right now there are lots of products that are either USDA Organic, or NonGMO project certified. If you buy those you can be assured that you are not consuming GM food.

What I-522 is attempting to do is label everything that ISN’T certified GMO free, including food that doesn’t actually contain any GMOs, but is simply undocumented. That’s why the message is so ambiguous. There is no testing requirement, and if you do not provide the proper documentation, it assumes there ARE GM ingredients in the food. Odd.

The Seattle bag law does have a cost. Each paper bag costs 5 cents and plastic is no longer available. The benefits for that cost are that the plastic waste generated from Seattle retailers is vastly reduced, and the use of recyclable bags has increased tremendously. To me, that’s a substantially positive result at a very minimal price.

Share This

[JoB]

VBP..

i am with TanDL..

i don’t buy the premise that a warning label requirement would drive costs..

although if it did.. i would gladly pay them

just like i do now when i choose to purchase a paper grocery bag at the store..

as for assumptions…

i don’t know about you..

but when i purchase any product that has corn or corn byproducts or soy or soy byproducts.. unless it is clearly labeled GMO free or is produced in the EU … i assume it contains GMO product..

and if i were a wiser woman i would take a closer look at the rest of the products i now assume to be GMO free… because i am likely wrong.

there is a reason those in the food production industry are spending such big bucks to avoid labeling requirements…

and it isn’t because they want us to be able to make informed choices

Share This

[TanDL]

A) Actually, there seems to be some question as to whether or not USDA Organic is really an assurance of non-GMO.

http://wondergressive.com/2013/04/03/usda-organic-does-not-mean-non-gmo/

B) And yes, you are correct that it’s probably not possible to make this an absolute zero cost issue for adding a couple of words to a label. But, food manufacturers HAVE to label and adding a couple of words to an existing graphic design is not that costly (I’ve done it for a very marginal cost and all sorts of manufacturers add to labels all the time). If I’m reading the proposal correctly they have until July 2015 to get it done. Are profit margins so thin that they have to pass these minor costs onto consumers and can’t absorb anything?

C) And yes, you are right that the Seattle bag law does have a small cost. But not the back-breaking costs and monumental hardships on retailers that we were told would be the result.

D) I don’t know how Trader Joe’s manages to run their affidavit process and keep prices so low, but apparently it can be done.

E) And it’s true… no one forces consumers to eat anything, but if consumers have no idea about what they are eating, then if they eat at all, they are likely to be eating GMO foods. And most of us don’t want to do that. So, how do we fix this?

I-522 is not a perfect proposal. If the food industry (you?) think there’s a better way to go than I-522, then start an initiative drive with a better proposal and let the people decide.

And finally, F) It might be a moot point anyhow if we don’t get bee colony collapse under control.

Share This

[VBD]

I think it’s hilarious that twice it’s been implied I work for the food industry. It’s also bizarre to me that my objections to I-522 have been portrayed as being anti-label.

If you read what I’ve written above, my position has been that labeling MUST provide usable information and that I-522 purposely avoids giving any.

The initiative is so bad it makes me wonder if Monsanto wrote it….

Share This

[VBD]

Trader Joes keeps their prices low by closely controlling their products with in-house branding. If they sold products from Kellogg, Pepsi, Kraft, General Mills, etc, it would be much harder for them to get the required documentation. They make the contract with the food producer before the food is even packaged, so there is not need for additional steps to confirm compliance. It’s a good model, and I love their stuff.

Share This

[TanDL]

Well there you go. Trader Joe’s has a good model. I didn’t mean to imply you were from the food industry. I meant that either the food industry or you could start an initiative drive with a better proposal than I-522 and let the people decide on which would work better for them. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Share This

[VBD]

As for the suggestion I look for a better way to do it, I have proposed a way at least 5 times in the thread above. Put the information on the FDA nutrition label.

The FDA is currently reviewing GMO labeling and disclosure. In fact, they just posted on their Consumer Updates page 2 days ago with a statement about GMO labeling, and has a draft guidance document for GMO disclosure.

If we keep the pressure there, and demand better access to GM foods by independent researchers, we can pursue this issue with good science and good policy.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm352067.htm

Share This

[waterworld]

VBD: Thank you for raising some of the very legitimate issues about I-522. I tried to raise some of these issues a while back and mostly just generated a little food fight. I, too, have no connection with the food industry and no financial interest in the issue. The bill has far less to do with accuracy in labeling and providing consumers useful information than it has to do with making sure that people see words on the front of the package to warn them there may be GMO product in there, somewhere.

My biggest beef with the bill is the first one you raised — namely putting the entire burden on the retailer. People who claim they love our small local businesses should talk to the owners about how they will cope with this bill. I’m not talking about PCC of course, which is not a small business and won’t be affected by this bill. I’m talking about the Husky Deli’s of the world, and the import shop down in SODO, those kinds of places. It’s a big problem for them, and it will translate into fewer choices for consumers who want to support them.

But there are about a dozen other problems with the bill, too. I just wanted to thank you for injecting reality into the discussion.

Share This

[VBD]

Thanks for the acknowledgement waterworld. I know that anytime I bring up an unpopular perspective, particularly with topic as sensitive as our food supply, I can expect to encounter venom. But the crowd here at WSB is very kind and respectful. I don’t mind at all being strongly challenged. I sometimes have to temper my response though, as saying the same thing over and over can become frustrating.

What’s particularly interesting about the I-522 debate is that most of the people I’ve encountered who are in favor of it have never read it. And those who have read it, generally don’t like it very much.

I think people are supporting it based on what they hope it will do, not what it says it will do. You’ll notice that in the press releases and in promotional materials, the Yes on 522 campaign never quotes it’s own initiative. Yet the opposition quotes it incessantly. That’s telling, I think.

Most ironic is the catch phrase for the campaign is “you have the right to know”, but when presented with how little information one would actually get, the response is almost universally, “it’s a start”, followed with a statement about how evil Monsanto is (which, by the way, they are).

It’s as though supporters really don’t want know about the GM content of their food at all. What they are looking for is a simple way to stigmatize food they probably wouldn’t have purchased in the first place. Seems very disingenuous.

And as you elude to, it really doesn’t target Monsanto in the least, but significantly impacts retailers. There is no mention about limiting how food is grown, harvested, prepared, packaged, or distributed. The law only kicks in when the food is offered for retail sale.

I strongly encourage everybody to simply read the initiative before voting. It really isn’t that long or complicated. Section 1 is just a purpose statement, Section 2 is definitions, and Section 3 is the actual proposed law. Section 3 is pretty short, so if you skip through the rest, definitely read all of that part.

I’d be happy to go through the thing line by line, but fear that could get tedious…

Share This

[JoB]

VBD

i do want to know about the GM content of my food..

and if people choose to not purchase products labeled with GMO warnings,

it would ultimately hurt monsanto because farmers won’t buy seed for product they can’t sell to manufacturers because no-one is going to produce a product retailers won’t buy because they can’t sell it to their customers.

if that is what happens.. i would cheer

but being a cynic i have a hard time believing labeling will make that large an impact on sales

every pack of cigarettes carries a warning that the product will likely kill you .. yet people still smoke.

i too would like to see science weigh in on this subject… but to be perfectly honest i am not willing to take my chances while they do their due dilegence… their answers are likely to arrive long after i am gone if they arrive at all…

in the meantime.. i want the opportunity to decide for myself whether or not i am willing to partake in the great American science experiment…

and in my heart of hearts i want America to pay attention to those warnings and put GMO products back on the shelf where they can go on sale for those people who will eat anything as long as it is cheap enough..

because.. that would be good for small farmers..

and i am willing to do all i can for people who take the time and care to produce real food.

Share This

[Talaki34]

VBD/waterworld

I thought you might enjoy reading this.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/02/analysis-of-washington-state-gmo-labeling-initiative-i-522/

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

VBD: You said:

“I think it’s hilarious that twice it’s been implied I work for the food industry.”

I didn’t imply this at all. I just asked a simple question which you deftly avoided answering. My question:

“Who do you work for? Are you in any way shape or form a paid representative or spokesperson for agribusiness?”

It’s a simple question, which would add weight to your posts if answered truthfully and simply. I would add another part to the question. Do you hold amy significant stake in a company which would potentially lose money if I-522 passed?

I don’t have any skin in the game. It’s only fair to ask if you don’t either.

Share This

[VBD]

Nope. I don’t work for any food companies or any company affiliated with food, genetics, agriculture, or retail. I’m a politically liberal West Seattle resident with a degree in Physics from the University of Washington, and am employed as a Health Physicist at a local applied physics laboratory. We do space environment testing, among other things.

I don’t know why any of that is relevant, but there you are.

Share This

[VBD]

JoB, I appreciate your passionate response. I find it particularly interesting, however, that you refer to the proposed GM label as a “GMO warning”.

The promoters of I-522 are very careful to avoid referring to the label as a warning. The standard message is that it would be a tool for consumers to make informed choices, in the same way someone might make a decision about vitamins, fat, protein or calories. You certainly wouldn’t refer to the fiber content on the nutrition label as a “fiber warning”. Or suggest the food has a “Vitamin C warning”. This is precisely what I meant when I said the motives for the label were disingenuous.

If you want a warning, then openly ask for one. Isn’t the point of this campaign to promote honest disclosure? Anyone opposed to I-522 is harshly condemned for even suggesting the objective is to stigmatize GM foods. “It’s about the right to know!!”

I think the correct way to address the public demand for information on the GM content of food is to provide concise accurate information, not by utilizing fear tactics.

Your contention that Monsanto will suffer if GM food sales drop to the point where they lose market share is precisely what I was referring to when I suggested that people support I-522 based on what they hope it would do, not what it says it will do.

If you want to go after Monsanto, then go DIRECTLY after them. Lobby to outlaw Roundup ready crops, or Bt modified crops. Why use retailers as an expendable pawn in your fight against big agribusiness?

I think it’s important to list the ingredients so we can decide what GM food sources are acceptable to us. Not all GM food is equal. Some is far more concerning than others.

I’m curious as to what people think of this article:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/07/prop-37-fails-scientists-cheer/

Share This

[DRG]

Thank you for your posts on this, VBD. I hadn’t read up on any of this before today. I DO want to know about GMO ingredients in the foods I eat…but knowing the details of I-522, I won’t be voting for it. Hopefully someone else will propose a labeling initiative I can get behind.

(And no, I don’t work in the food industry either.)

Share This

[JoB]

VBD

to me the label would be a warning..

when i am driving down the road i appreciate those little warning signs that tell me i might be about to encounter wild animals or rocks falling on the road or ….

they don’t cause me to stop in my tracks and pursue a different route.. but they do alert me that i might be heading into a danger zone.

Right now.. there is no labeling of any kind that would indicate that i might be consuming something i might want to research more or avoid altogether..

i will say that you are doing a great job of promoting the great Seattle curse of doom for legislation…

it isn’t perfect so i won’t vote for it…

next time you venture onto the freeways to go from West Seattle to the other side of the downtown core.. you might ask yourself if using a little common sense and doing something even if it’s not perfect might not have been a better approach.

just saying

Share This

[VBD]

I am not opposed to warnings at all. The message on a pack of cigarettes is acknowledged to be a warning. Supporters of that message will tell you it’s intent is to stigmatize cigarettes so people will reduce their consumption. It’s all open and honest. I support that label, as it is based on good science.

Warning signs on the road are acceptable, since there is VERY good scientific evidence that hitting a deer at highway speeds is dangerous.

Warnings are appropriate when the hazard has been identified and quantified.

And for the level of perfection, I would lower your standard a bit. No law is perfect. This issue needs to be assessed based on what it will do, not how good it makes us feel.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

VBD:

Thanks for answering my question. There’s lots of info coming from well funded places trying to sway opinion. It’s just nice to know when speaking with someone weather or not they have ulterior motives.

At any rate, I’m pretty swayed by your reasoning. I feel there’s no room for any more poorly written laws. My only hesitation is the likelihood of backers of “No on 522” using it’s defeat to sway public opinion of any future initiative. You know, statements like, “The people have already spoken, and they realize GMO products are good, and the future, and blah, blah, blah…”

Now, I tend to side with scientific consensus with regard to things like public health, and it seems like it’s there with regard to GMOs not being harmful. I also, support the public’s right to know what they are putting in their bodies, regardless of what science tells us. I think that’s a pretty reasonable request.

Now, if the crowd wanting GMO information on a label is it reasonable to have it in such a a way that is consistant with some dairy farmers’ packaging concerning rBst? For example: “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows.”

This seems to get at the problem in a very open and at least reasonably neutral way. The market decided and the rBst hormone is (as of 2010) only in less than 40% of the milk in the US….probably less now.

In your opinion, was this also unjust labeling?

Share This

[JoB]

WorldCitizen

remember when the scientific consensus was that smoking was not hazardous to your health?

i do.

VBD

i may not be up to a lengthy scientific discussion with footnotes at the moment…

but you err in dismissing my argument by saying

“This issue needs to be assessed based on what it will do, not how good it makes us feel.”

this bill although not perfect will give people a head’s up that they may be consuming something they would prefer not to eat…

and it will encourage those who produce GMO free products to label them clearly.

i will admit that i will feel good about that..

but not that a common sense argument is the conversational equivalent of touchie feelie

Share This

[Author]

Posts