When Franklin County senate candidates participated in a forum in Sheldon this past week, one of the questions they fielded concerned GMO labeling.
The candidates’ responses were especially telling. Most seemed to think it was none of their business; a matter for the feds.
Libertarian Peter Moss characteristically said he “eats for enjoyment” and has no opinion on GMO’s.
Independent Judith McLaughlin was content to dismiss it as a federal fight.
Democrat Don Collins admits he didn’t “follow that piece of legislation” but is generally disinclined to “go out and make more work for people and hope it has an impact.” Hmm…
Republican Norm McAllister, as the only House Ag Committee member to vote against H.722, a bill that would require labeling of all GMO content in dietary products, claims the disclosure requirement could harm small business in Vermont and recommends that anyone who objects to GMO’s simply eat nothing but organic foods(!); which, of course, is so easy for low income Vermonters to do.
Somehow, his position doesn’t sound so much like a benefit to small business as discrimination against poorer folks who would just like to know what they are eating.
Dustin Degree at least seems to have given the matter some small consideration, remarking that “no hard studies showing health impacts of GMO’s were presented” in connection with the introduction of H-722. Of course he neglects to mention that none were presented because none are available, owing to the tremendous power of the chemical industry which has successfully suppressed any efforts at meaningful study.
Mr. Degree opts for inaction, repeating a tired old favorite argument of the GOP against most attempts at statewide regulation of almost anything: that GMO labeling would violate the Interstate Commerce clause, (which he refers to as the “interstate trade compact of the federal constitution.”)
Of the candidates, only Caroline Bright has recognized the significance of GMO’s to a profoundly agricultural state like Vermont; and only she has had the initiative to gain more than a glancing knowledge of the complex issues involved.
Immediately apparent to almost anyone who has even a superficial understanding of the plant “inventions” that GMO’s represent, is their largely untested impact over time on the health of the consumer. It is this understanding alone that accounts for the fact that the vast majority of Vermonters, together with much of the developed world, favor GMO labeling rules.
“For me, the issue is really straightforward. I think people have a right to know what is in their food” said Bright, “This whole discussion is really an issue of moving consumer protection into the 21st century.
Apart from this obvious concern, Ms. Bright has learned about the potential for calamity in a food system that becomes dependent entirely on monocultures, such as those being enforced in the U.S. and Canada by chemical giants like Monsanto, who now not only control the most abundantly grown and distributed crops in North America, but also the pesticides on which their success is dependent; and, she knows that, through an arcane and extremely litigious enforcement process, Monsanto has bound much of the American farming industry to its service.
So, this is entirely a federal matter and should be of no concern to Franklin County, the “bread-basket” of Vermont? Really?
In the coming decades, most experts agree that food crops will be the big economic driver as dietary demands of a global market continue to grow, and as arable land comes into even shorter supply. To abdicate responsibility for GMO labeling to some distant federal process is not only cowardly and short-sighted, but it risks damage to the Vermont “brand” which has come to mean something in many parts of the world where GMO labeling is already an accepted practice.
Not to realize this represents stunning ignorance with regard to Vermont’s number one asset: its global brand.
Thanks for pointing out Caroline Bright’s answer on GMO’s. Just shows how much we need some young voices in the legislature…she “gets it” that people want to know what’s in their food, especially young families with little kids !
I’ve done some reading on this, and it’s wrong of Dustin Degree to imply that no “hard” studies showing health impacts of GMO’s were presented…in spite of the strangle-hold of chemical industries on research & the FDA, there are plenty of studies that indicate potential harm ( hard to substantiate in humans, of course when the gmo’s in our food are kept secret !)
At the citizen testimony held before the House Ag. Committee ( Norm McAllister was the only member not present , I believe, as well as the only member to vote against the bill), well over 100 people testified, and many referred to studies that worried them as to the effects of the GMO food they were eating because they had no means to identify it, and keep it out of their diet.
Mr. Degree can check out “Genetic Roulette” by Jeffery M. Smith for a recent, thorough discussion of effects of GMO’s. Science & biology are complex, so possible effects are numerous and hard to foresee, but I guarantee that once you start understanding the kinds of things that happen you really, really want to know what’s in your food !
I had the pleasure of meeting Caroline recently and was impressed with her intelligence, commitment and youthful enthusiasm. Along with Mike McCarthy (and others), she offers hope for the good folks of Franklin County.
She’s absolutely right on GMO’s and I applaud her courage in speaking out.
Nice to know thast there is at least one “bright” light in the Franklin County political world.
The testimony of Robert Merker of the FDA made the following claim:
Claiming that a tiny change in amino acid composition can have no effect on human health is disingenuous, at the very least.
Let’s start with a simple, very familiar case:
Phenylketonuria (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) – dding one amino acid, phenylalanine, to a food can cause a wide array of severe birth defects in those fetuses that are unable to metabolize the amino acid. In adults with the disease, it can cause nervous system degeneration and hamper mental functioning. This became a big public health issue when the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet) became the “go to” sweetener for diet sodas, eventually leading to warning labels for phenylketonurics.
But the effects of amino acids on health are not limited to those with rare genetic metabolic disorders. For example L-canavanine, an amino acid, is so similar to L-arginine that it can replace L-arginine in cells, with rather unfortunate effects (death) on any insect that consumes the affected protein. This substitution is frequently made in GMO alfalfa to provide insect resistance. That “minor” amino acid change turns alfalfa into a pesticide. But insects are not the only life forms affected …
L-canavanine has another known effect: it activates a particular receptor called the “dmx receptor” in human embryonic kidneys while the similar, but harmless amino acid L-arginine does not. In humans, the dmx receptor plays a role in estrogen-sensitive cancer cell proliferation. Activation of the receptor increases proliferation – that is, it makes your body produce more cancer cells. (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/4/1522.full.pdf)
In addition, L-canavanine is associated with the induction of Lupus. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.1780280109/abstract)
Here are are a couple of hypothetical scenarios to consider based on the above three facts:
Scenario 1:
Dmx receptor activation has been shown to occur in embryonic kidney cells exposed to L-canavanine. There have been no studies as to whether that activation can occur as a direct result of ingestion of L-canavanine by the mother, but the lack of a study does not rule out the possibility (just as shutting one’s eyes does not rule out the existence of the world around you).
Scenario 2:
The lupus-inducing action of the amino acid L-canavanine has been tested and shown to occur (see link above).
Can the increased presence of the amino acid L-canavanine result in “a functional difference in the safety of food”? Clearly.
Lupus is a serious health problem. It can be caused by the ingestion of L-canavanine, an amino acid that is present in GMO alfalfa.
In addition, the potential for greater proliferation of some of the most common cancers is a potential threat to patients who develop those cancers. Not knowing how maternal ingestion of L-canavanine affects the developing embryo, but knowing that tumor proliferation receptors are turned on by L-canavanine in embryonic kidney cells is a very, very strong reason to use the cautionary principle regarding the release of this one amino acid into the food chain – especially in the absence of safety studies specific to this known mutagenic effect.
Those two major health issues arise from a very minor difference in just one amino acid in one grain crop.
Amino acid metabolism affects us at the most basic cellular level – just ask anyone with diabetes or any number of metabolic disorders.
All of the chemical processes in our bodies related to cell growth, cell functioning, and cell death are affected by the amino acids we consume. Modifying amino acids in foods affects how our bodies use those foods. As shown with both alfalfa and sodas, changing the amino acid composition of a food product can clearly have a detrimental effect on health.
I’m stunned someone from the FDA chose to make statements to the contrary in the face of clear evidence otherwise.