If Monsanto, Dow, and the other "big chem" companies are so proud of their products and are so certain that they are great for the environment and for us, then why all of the all of resistance to labeling and insulation from lawsuits and criminal proceedings?

Expert response from Scott Kohne

NAFTA Market Acceptance Manager, Seeds & Traits Unit, BBASF

Monday, 18/08/2014 10:59

Biotechnology companies are not the only ones opposed to labeling legislation. Farming organizations, grower groups, family farmers and ranchers, food producers, grocers, consumers, physicians, scientists, civic leaders, U.S. regulatory agencies and others have also come out against recent labeling legislative initiatives.
 
For decades, agricultural biotechnology has helped improve food crops to resist disease, improve pest-management efficiency, improve food nutrition value and increase overall crop yield. Today, 70 to 80 percent of grocery products contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients that have been reviewed and deemed safe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and major scientific and medical organizations.
 
There are several reasons why so many groups have come out against these state-level labeling attempts. Consider Washington State Initiative 522 (I-522) as a case in point. I-522 was a 2013 ballot initiative that would have required foods produced entirely or partly with genetic engineering to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale in Washington. If I-522 had passed, it would have set up an arbitrary labeling system with requirements and exemptions that would have been confusing for consumers while providing no new nutritional or safety information about the product — especially since GM foods have been deemed as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.
 
The three primary areas of concern in regard to recent state GM labeling initiatives include:

Safety and nutrition
FDA has authority over food labeling and mandates that the information presented on the labels for consumers in the United States be science based and focused on safety and nutritional information. FDA has formally stated that GM products that have been deregulated for commercial use in the United States are as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts and pose no safety issues. Therefore, FDA is opposed to states’ requiring additional GM labeling information.
 
Costs incurred by consumers and farmers
I-522 would have created more state bureaucracy, imposed new costs and burdens on local farmers and businesses and increased food prices for Washington families. The proposition would also have put Washington farmers and food companies at a competitive disadvantage by increasing their costs and discouraging them from using modern varieties of crops that are more resistant to pests and disease and require fewer pesticides and less water.
 
Additionally, farmers and food producers would have been forced to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution and record-keeping operations or to switch to higher-priced, specially handled, non-GE ingredients in order to sell food in Washington State. These added costs would have been passed on to Washington consumers. An analysis by the well-respected Washington Research Council found that I-522 would have increased the cost of groceries for the average Washington family by more than $450 per year. Additionally, a white paper published by the independent Washington State Academy of Sciences confirmed I-522 “would [have] increase[d] costs to firms and increase[d] food prices for consumers.” Additionally, it would have required the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores — at a cost to taxpayers.
 
GM labeling would lead to consumer confusion
The free market provides consumers with more reliable information than they would get from labeling. Labeling would entail special exemptions and clumsy rules that would ensure shoppers receive inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete information. For example, I-522 would have required fruits, vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled but would have exempted meat and dairy products from animals fed GE grains. It would have mandated special labels and signs for foods containing GE ingredients when they are sold in supermarkets but would have exempted restaurants from providing information about GE ingredients in their foods. Additionally, foods imported from foreign countries would have been exempt if manufacturers had simply claimed they were exempt. So I-522 would not even have given consumers a reliable way of knowing which foods contain GE ingredients and which don’t.
 
Conversely, the market gives shoppers valid and useful information about food. For those who want to choose non-GE foods, there already exists a voluntary nationwide labeling system — Truth in Labeling — that allows manufacturers to identify their products as “organic“ or “non-GMO.”

US farmers, food producers and scientists urge you to look into the facts regarding GM labeling carefully. As the American Medical Association states, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bio-engineered foods.”

Expert response from Scott Kohne

NAFTA Market Acceptance Manager, Seeds & Traits Unit, BBASF

Monday, 18/08/2014 10:59

Biotechnology companies are not the only ones opposed to labeling legislation. Farming organizations, grower groups, family farmers and ranchers, food producers, grocers, consumers, physicians, scientists, civic leaders, U.S. regulatory agencies and others have also come out against recent labeling legislative initiatives.
 
For decades, agricultural biotechnology has helped improve food crops to resist disease, improve pest-management efficiency, improve food nutrition value and increase overall crop yield. Today, 70 to 80 percent of grocery products contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients that have been reviewed and deemed safe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and major scientific and medical organizations.
 
There are several reasons why so many groups have come out against these state-level labeling attempts. Consider Washington State Initiative 522 (I-522) as a case in point. I-522 was a 2013 ballot initiative that would have required foods produced entirely or partly with genetic engineering to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale in Washington. If I-522 had passed, it would have set up an arbitrary labeling system with requirements and exemptions that would have been confusing for consumers while providing no new nutritional or safety information about the product — especially since GM foods have been deemed as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.
 
The three primary areas of concern in regard to recent state GM labeling initiatives include:

Safety and nutrition
FDA has authority over food labeling and mandates that the information presented on the labels for consumers in the United States be science based and focused on safety and nutritional information. FDA has formally stated that GM products that have been deregulated for commercial use in the United States are as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts and pose no safety issues. Therefore, FDA is opposed to states’ requiring additional GM labeling information.
 
Costs incurred by consumers and farmers
I-522 would have created more state bureaucracy, imposed new costs and burdens on local farmers and businesses and increased food prices for Washington families. The proposition would also have put Washington farmers and food companies at a competitive disadvantage by increasing their costs and discouraging them from using modern varieties of crops that are more resistant to pests and disease and require fewer pesticides and less water.
 
Additionally, farmers and food producers would have been forced to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution and record-keeping operations or to switch to higher-priced, specially handled, non-GE ingredients in order to sell food in Washington State. These added costs would have been passed on to Washington consumers. An analysis by the well-respected Washington Research Council found that I-522 would have increased the cost of groceries for the average Washington family by more than $450 per year. Additionally, a white paper published by the independent Washington State Academy of Sciences confirmed I-522 “would [have] increase[d] costs to firms and increase[d] food prices for consumers.” Additionally, it would have required the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores — at a cost to taxpayers.
 
GM labeling would lead to consumer confusion
The free market provides consumers with more reliable information than they would get from labeling. Labeling would entail special exemptions and clumsy rules that would ensure shoppers receive inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete information. For example, I-522 would have required fruits, vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled but would have exempted meat and dairy products from animals fed GE grains. It would have mandated special labels and signs for foods containing GE ingredients when they are sold in supermarkets but would have exempted restaurants from providing information about GE ingredients in their foods. Additionally, foods imported from foreign countries would have been exempt if manufacturers had simply claimed they were exempt. So I-522 would not even have given consumers a reliable way of knowing which foods contain GE ingredients and which don’t.
 
Conversely, the market gives shoppers valid and useful information about food. For those who want to choose non-GE foods, there already exists a voluntary nationwide labeling system — Truth in Labeling — that allows manufacturers to identify their products as “organic“ or “non-GMO.”

US farmers, food producers and scientists urge you to look into the facts regarding GM labeling carefully. As the American Medical Association states, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bio-engineered foods.”