Today, I picked up a can of "Rumford baking powder" in the kitchen, and
noticed a prominent starburst on the label saying:
"Not Genetically Modified"
This is the first such label I have seen on a US national-brand product,
(Ben & Jerry's ice cream has done so for some time, but they don't
really count, as they are owned by "Unilever", a British company better
known for soap than ice cream, which may explain some of the more
unusual ice cream flavors recently created.)
...so it caught my attention. I wondered if I should start labeling my
honey with a similar starburst.
It also made me stop and think - what COULD possibly be "GM" in
baking powder? As it turns out, there is some corn starch in baking
powder, and I guess the "Starlink" corn incident prompted the Rumford
people to take matters into their own hands.
British and European members of this list have often mentioned their concerns
about genetically modified crops. While there appears to be much less overt
anger about GM crops and food in the US, there is a slowly growing public
consensus building that food should be labeled if it contains GM ingredients.
The UPI newswire reported this month that 88.4% of people surveyed in the
US thought that GM labeling should be required.
http://www.thecampaign.org/News/nov02k.htm#survey
But even the "People's Republic of Vermont" (as those of us from the rest
of New England call it) can't seem to get a "label law" passed. Oregon just
tried in their November elections, and the measure failed.
But could we put "GM-free" labels on our honey if we wanted to?
I'm not sure, but the rules are... ummm... interesting.
The US Food and Drug Administration only requires labeling of
genetically engineered foods if the food has a significantly
different nutritional property, or if a food includes an allergen that
consumers would not expect to be present. (This means that
almost nothing in the US is required to be labeled as "GM".)
More interestingly, the FDA discourages labels like Rumford's.
Examples of correct/incorrect "voluntary labeling" under the
currently proposed FDA guidelines are given below:
"GMO Free" or "Not Genetically Modified"
Not FDA recommended. Their rationale is that "Free" implies zero content,
which the FDA says is "nearly impossible to verify". (I wonder why that
would be "impossible", since it would be much less difficult than the source
documentation required for "Organic" labeled food.) The FDA also says that
"Genetically Modified" is an "inappropriate" term, in that "all crop varieties have
been modified by plant breeders". (Using this sort of reasoning, both I and the
dogs at my feet are "Genetically Modified", since we have all been "bred" for
desirable traits through generations of overt conscious choices by "breeders".
Ooops, so have my bees. So have my rose bushes, my apple trees...)
The lesson here is that whoever "controls" the terminology
can frame the issues, and control the debate.
"We do not use ingredients produced using biotechnology."
The FDA does not mind the use of this long-winded phrase,
and does not argue that this would be "nearly impossible to
verify", which seems to indicate inconsistent (or fuzzy) thinking.
I can cope with their being wrong, but can't they at least try to
be consistent about it?
"This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered."
The FDA doesn't mind this either. Weird, huh? I guess the excuse
about "nearly impossible" might come up in regard to soybeans, given
the recent "ProdiGene" incident
http://www.msnbc.com/news/835455.asp?0dm=C21CN
where soybeans, corn, and some unusual unregistered drug testing
all recently collided head-on in a Nebraska field with no survivors.
"This cantaloupe was not genetically engineered."
The FDA thinks that this phrase would be misleading, as it implies
that other cantaloupes may be genetically engineered. The FDA
says that there are no such cantaloupes on the market.
The above makes me laugh. While the FDA's view is that "all crop varieties
have been modified by plant breeders", and thus claims that the term
"Genetically Modified" could be applied to ALL cantaloupes grown today,
they would take issue with someone stating that one of them was not
overtly "Genetically Engineered", even when the statement would be 100% true.
They forget that I am consistently presented with a wide assortment of fruit
(life is good!) and might want to make choices of which fruits to put in my fruit
salad based solely upon which are "GM" and which are not without lugging around
an encyclopedia of all possible fruit crops and their status vis-a-vis "GM" varieties.
And the internet won't help much - wireless access with a Palm Pilot NEVER
works in a typical produce section of a grocery. Too much RF from the lights
and the cooler compressors. Darn cellphone barely works. You'd have to go
over near the windows, or out in the parking lot to "check the fruit". Away from
the fruit itself. Life can get complicated sometimes. :)
But, the important point for honey would be that for someone to label their
honey as "Non-GM", they would have to claim that someone else was selling
"GM Honey", which I would suppose would be honey produced from nectar
gathered from a "GM" crop, following the terminology used in the European
discussions. But I'd bet that contrasting views on even that point exist.
"Genetically Engineered"
"This product contains cornmeal that was produced using biotechnology."
The FDA would allow someone to label food as above if they wanted to,
but somehow, I doubt anyone will do so willingly.
"This product contains HIGH OLEIC ACID SOYBEAN OIL from soybeans
developed using biotechnology to decrease the amount of saturated fat."
The part in caps would be mandatory because it indicates a nutritional
change. The rest would be voluntary under the proposed guidelines, so
you know what parts will and will not start appearing on labels, don't you?
(Remember the good old days when the terms "HIGH" and "ACID" in
close proximity had only one possible meaning?)
If there were a state in the USA with a high population, but negligible agriculture,
that state could pass a "label law", and force the issue for all nationally-sold
products without taking a self-imposed hit on its own agricultural sector.
But there just aren't any. And no one wants to be first, due to the hit that
local agricultural producers would take as a result.
But it does seem clear that we can put "100% Fat-Free" and "Low Sodium"
on our honey labels with a straight face and a clear conscience.
That's what I found out in the kitchen today.
Its no wonder I can't get around to cleaning up the garage.
And wow - there are less than 100 days to March 1st!
Time to get that woodenware spruced up!
Spring is just around the corner!
|
