Bioengineered Food Disclosure

July 3, 2018

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Docket No.: AMS-TM-17-050

RE: Comments on proposed regulations to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards (NBFDS)

The AMS has solicited comments on a broad range of issues related to the NBFDS. To facilitate navigation and maintain context, the following comments are organized within the outline of the proposed rule as published.

In addition, please see the Notice of Dissent posted below the comments.

Outline of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

II. Applicability: What is to be disclosed?

A. Definitions

B. Food Subject to Disclosure

C. Bioengineered Food

1. Definition of “Bioengineering” and “Bioengineered Food”

AMS invites comment on these two different positions on how to interpret the statutory definition of “bioengineering,” and thus the scope of the regulatory definition of “bioengineered food.”

COMMENT: Position #1 is based on the false framework that scientific concerns about GMO (“bioengineered”) food is safe or not, and further that its long-term safety can be assessed solely based on the characteristics of the novel genome or individual novel genes within the GMO (“bioengineered”) plant and the food derived from it. Scientific analysis of GMO (“bioengineered”) crops is widely understood to focus on the overall cropping system on which most GMO (“bioengineered”) crops are dependent. Problematic consequences have been identified, including the use of nonrenewable resources to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides, the negative effects of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on the systemic regenerative properties of healthy soil. In addition, new inquiries into the functioning of the Earth’s overall environment, including soil, animal and human co-dependent roles in it, are leading to the conclusion that the pervasive low-level contamination of air, food and water by these synthetic chemicals, combined with the deterioration and loss of soil resources, have created and continue to create global systemic decay of health through poorer nutrition and innate responses to toxic overload. By the time a food containing no detectable level of genetic material is purchased or consumed, most of the damage it can do is already done. The commenter requests that the AMS reconsider the usefulness of Position #1 in light of its disconnectedness from the numerous underlying problems that have been found with GMO (“bioengineered”) food production methods prior to the removal of genetic material during processing.

In particular, AMS is interested in any additional studies conducted on this issue, the cost of implementation under each policy, and whether certain policies describing the scope of foods subject to the disclosure standard would lower costs to affected entities.

COMMENT: Please see the attachment to this document titled, “Notice of Dissent” from the conceptual framework of the National Bioengineered Foods Disclosure Standard, which will direct you to numerous topics of concern with the methods, inputs and safety of GMO (“bioengineered”) foods. In regard to lowering costs to affected entities, please note that the externalized costs of GMO (“bioengineered”) food production has not been adequately addressed by the statute or the proposed rule. The AMS may wish to consider, for instance, glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D, which are highly toxic synthetic pesticides foundational to GMO (“bioengineered”) crop production. (In fact, almost all commercialized corn and soy, which together account for 95% of GMO (“bioengineered”) crop production, were created for the specific commercial purpose of profiting from the sale of these and other proprietary pesticides.) The toxic effects on animal and human health from synthetic pesticides like glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D are well documented. These products often drift onto non-target crops, livestock and human habitations. These products accumulate in waterways and groundwater. Glyphosate in particular has been shown to disrupt human health through its disruptive effects on the gut biome. Patented as a potent full spectrum antibiotic by the Monsanto Corporation in 2011, glyphosate has been shown to kill off beneficial gut bacteria and in turn promote the over-colonization of potentially harmful species and strains. Glyphosate and other agricultural chemicals are now pervasive in air, water and food. They can hardly be avoided, and testing has revealed its presence in the majority urine of both city dwellers and rural farmers. Other materials related to GMO (“bioengineered”) food production include synthetic nitrogen. Nitrogen run-off has been shown to cause anaerobic dead zones due to algae blooms in millions of square miles of inland waterways and coastal deltas. Many consumers wish to reduce and mitigate the negative effects of fertilizers and pesticides inherent to GMO (“bioengineered”) and conventional agricultural production. They can only do so if the resulting products are properly labeled so they can make an informed and free choice to avoid them. Therefore, the AMS should account for the massive global costs of GMO (“bioengineered”) cropping systems before entertaining the proposition that potential savings in the amount of hundredths of a penny per package should support the adoption of Position #1.

In addition, we request public comment on whether one position is a better interpretation of the statutory definition.

COMMENT: The conceptual framework under which Position #1 and Position #2 were conceived is self-contradictory. Under Position #1, the framework does not clearly identify testing methods and the minimum detectable levels possible using each method. Many labs that depend on the GMO (“bioengineered”) food, feed and fiber industries for revenue use methods and equipment that are calibrated to detect only known GMO (“bioengineered”) genes or gene proxies and claim to be able to detect their presence down to 10 parts per million. The AMS should be aware that this restricted detection is merely a twenty-year-old convention within these industries. New equipment and methodologies can reliable detect quantities of GMO (“bioengineered”) genes or gene proxies down to 3 parts per trillion. By the time the final rule takes effect, that minimum threshold will likely be a single molecule quantitively, and the single molecule will be identifiable. In addition, some qualified laboratories are working on test methods that will measure markers other than “residual genetic material” to identify GMO (“bioengineered”) sources of material like sucrose in the example provided. Therefore, the commenter requests that AMS not rely on the conventional wisdom of current industry science that there is a “minimum detectable level”.

Position #1 also raises seemingly endless contentious scenarios of unintended contamination of conventional crops by GMO (“bioengineered”) genetic drift or comingling during processing. Unless the AMS intends to establish a National NBFDS Program to certify that conventional crops were properly grown as non-GMO (“bioengineered”) varieties, similar to the National Organic Program which oversees certified organic production, the AMS is setting up a situation where an overly broad allowance for contamination may generate a lax system of identity preservation.

Position #2, for the same reasons, avoids the creation of a confusing patchwork system of regulations among affected entities, laboratories, producers and related entities. To maintain a 0.9% tolerance, all affected entities in the supply chain will have to continue to pay close attention to identity preservation

For USDA’s estimate of the cost of implementation under each position, please see the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis.

COMMENT: The estimated cost of implementation data provided in support of each position does not account for externalized costs to the environment, soil health, food nutrition, animal health or human health. Small direct costs should be balanced against these massive widespread externalize costs that are passed on to unwary citizens. The commenter requests that AMS provide more complete systemic data on the known and potential benefits and savings if GMO (“bioengineered”) foods are able to be avoided by consumers, based on GMO (“bioengineering”) disclosure, at which time the commenter will analyze the complete data.

Conventional Breeding

As to the component terms of the definition of “bioengineering,” AMS seeks comment on whether the NBFDS should include a definition for “conventional breeding,” and if so, what it should be.

COMMENT: The long-established consensus is that conventional breeding includes only “traditional methods of breeding or crossing plants, animals, or microbes with certain desired characteristics for the purpose of generating offspring that express those characteristics”. In particular, traditional breeding does not attempt to trigger novel or accelerated mutations by way of chemical, radiation or other artificial mutagenesis. There are nuances to this definition. Conventional breeding may, for instance, shorten the time between new generations of organisms by growing cultivars or strains in controlled environments or in geographic areas where there is no cold or dark season to trigger seasonal dormancy. Genomic trait marker analysis may be used in conventional breeding to identify specific traits among cultivars or strains to assist in selecting which organisms to breed or cross through conventional breeding methods. Conventional breeders have no small number of tools available to them if they were encouraged to use them.

AMS seeks comment on whether a definition of “conventional breeding,” if included in the regulations implementing the NBFDS, should be limited to methods currently used to propagate or modify existing genetics.

COMMENT: The AMS should include a clear definition of conventional breeding to allow affected entities to easily identify which sources of cultivars and strains are NOT GMO (“bioengineered”) sources and this NOT subject to mandatory label disclosures. It is not possible to identify or adequately define all non-conventional methods of breeding, including those currently in use and those under development or hypothesized. The AMS should define GMO (“bioengineered”) materials as those not created using conventional methods. Absent a clear definition of conventional breeding methods and a concurrent all-encompassing definition of GMO (“bioengineered”) methods as anything not conventional, the AMS will generate endless confusion regarding novel breeding methods that may or may not fit a narrow definition of GMO (“bioengineered”) status and thus may be claimed by inventors, users and owners of a technology to be exempt from regulation under the National Bioengineered Foods Disclosure Standard. The AMS should also note that affected entities will incur potentially large long-term costs of compliance efforts if conventional breeding is not clearly defined and clearly exempted (or not) from disclosure and enforcement action.

“Found in Nature”

As to the component terms of the definition of “bioengineering,” AMS seeks comment on whether the NBFDS should include a definition for “found in nature,” and if so, what it should be.

COMMENT: The AMS should take careful measure of the false claim that GMO (“bioengineered”) crops have been under development by humans for thousands of years. This false claim, often made by industry representatives and their proxies, fails to differentiate between conventional breeding and GMO (“bioengineered) methods, apparently in an effort to confuse consumers about science. The false claim is often matched with the conclusion that “GMO (“bioengineered”) food has been created and consumed for centuries, therefore it is safe”. Again, the safety of the food itself is only a small part of the broad precautionary concerns about GMO (“bioengineered”) foods. Significant accelerated degradation of soils and the environment (and commensurate threats to animal and human health) by synthetic chemicals associated with GMO (“bioengineered”) food production has only occurred over the last 20 years, not the “thousands of years” stated in the false claim. The idea that novel genomes can be “found in nature” in highly mutated forms is accurate only because it reflects the great biodiversity found on the planet now and in the past as the result of natural selection and some conventional selective breeding. The danger of establishing the term “found in nature” as a regulatory equivalent for “conventional breeding” is that after genomes have been altered by one method or another they may at a later date be “found in nature” intentionally or by happenstance. As of this writing, we have a fairly clear idea of what crops and varieties have been artificially mutated in controlled settings and subsequently released into uncontrolled natural settings. For example, groups of corn or soy genomes can be sorted into “conventionally bred” or GMO (“bioengineered”) categories. However, as GMO (“bioengineered”) plants continue to evolve through natural selection in the environment, the distinction between GMO (“bioengineered”) varieties and original conventionally bred varieties may become less discernable and identity testing may not be adequate to differentiate them. Thus, a GMO (“bioengineered”) crop could eventually be (erroneously) “found in nature”. The AMS is aware that nearly 100% of known food, fiber, feed and fuel crops have already been genetically modified (“bioengineered”) by industry in preparation for commercial use in agricultural, home gardening, industrial and laboratory uses. When a thousand GMO (“bioengineered”) varieties of a thousand plant species are active in the environment, the concept of “found in nature” will no longer be useful. The AMS should prepare for this future reality by providing a regulatory framework that clear defines, acknowledges and protects genomes that contain only conventionally bred traits. Otherwise, the AMS will eventually require that all foods be labeled as GMO (bioengineered), which appears contrary to Congressional intent.

AMS invites comment on this approach of using intellectual property protections as a method in determining whether a modification could not otherwise be found in nature, including specific comments on whether it should distinguish between the different categories of patents available under 35 U.S.C. 101.

COMMENT: The commenter does not agree that intellectual property law of the United States should be used as a basis for determining whether a modification could or could not otherwise be found in nature. Since at least the 1970’s, industry interests, including academic research institutions, have sought to profit from identifying, modifying and/or recombining genetic material already existing in nature. Intellectual property statutes, commercial practices and established precedents in case law have been heavily influenced by these self-dealing efforts and have resulted in system that is rigged in favor of severing genetic sequences from the public domain for private gain. Thus, were the AMS to recognize current intellectual property law as a guide to whether or not a material was subject to GMO (“bioengineered”) food labeling, it would be akin to asking the fox to decide which chickens are good eatin’. The fox will eventually find an appetite for them all.

AMS also invites comment on other possible definitions or methods of determining whether a specific modification could not otherwise be found in nature.

COMMENT: If any material is determined to be “found in nature”, the AMS must always state when it was found in nature. The longer GMO (“bioengineered”) genetic materials are released into uncontrolled environments, the more they will change with each generation and the easier it will be to confuse them with true natural materials.

2. Lists of Bioengineered Foods

Request for Comments on the Lists

AMS solicits comments on several aspects of the proposed lists, including the composition of the lists and whether the proposed cutoff at 85 percent adoption rate would support the presumption that the food is BE and thus would be appropriate for identifying foods on the list of highly adopted BE foods. We are interested in whether another percentage rate would be more appropriate.

COMMENT: The proposed lists appear to be based on a misunderstanding of what GMO (“bioengineered”) crops are used for. 90% of GMO (“bioengineered”) soy and corn are used for animal feed and ethanol production. Neither corn nor soy are considered to be primarily food crops. The conclusion that that the adoption rate for all uses, including non-food uses, will determine the adoption rate for use in food is spurious.

The commenter suggests the AMS consider using the concept of “suitable and commercially available non-GMO (“non-bioengineered”) substitutes”. In the case of corn varieties used for food, food ingredients and food additives, there are three strong parallel supply chains: certified organic, conventional, and non-GMO (“non-bioengineered”). During the formulation of a product containing a corn ingredient, a purchasing agent has access to any of these three kinds of corn and all will provide similar results. If organic food corn makes up 15% of the available food corn, conventional corn makes up 25% of the available corn, and the GMO (“bioengineered”) food corn makes up 60% of the available food corn, then the likelihood of the formulator using GMO (“bioengineered”) corn is only 60% even though it is a widely adopted variety. Note, for example, that GMO (“bioengineered”) sugar beets make up 100% of the available sugar beet sugar on the market, the likelihood that a formulator will use GMO (“bioengineered”) sugar beets sugar is far below 100%. There are many other sweeteners available, including those made from corn, sugar cane, rice, and other crops. In fact, this is the dynamic currently taking place in the food industry: consumers are avoiding GMO (“bioengineered”) ingredients, so formulators are looking for non-GMO (“non-bioengineered”) substitutes.

Rather than lumping all GMO (“bioengineered’) crops into buckets based on market adoption rates, the AMS should consider the relative likelihood that groups of similar ingredients like sweeteners are likely to be sourced as GMO (“bioengineered”) versions. That balanced approach will better inform the disclosure requirements. GMO (“bioengineered”) corn syrup does not dominate the sweetener market to the same extent the proposed list framework suggests it does.

We also seek comments on the potential impact and any burdens associated with maintaining separate lists for high and non-high adoption BE foods.

COMMENT: Every producer of crops, ingredients, materials, processing aids and products knows or can know whether their supply chain is using GMO (“bioengineered”) ingredients. When disclosure becomes mandatory, these operators as a whole will disclose the GMO (“bioengineered”) status of these items. There is no impact of burden association with maintaining updated and accurate lists of these items.

AMS solicits input on the criteria used to create the lists, what foods should be listed, and on how best to identify those foods.

COMMENT: The following page contains a partial list of products, materials, ingredients and processing aids that may be produced using currently approved and commercialized GMO (“bioengineering”) technology, and thus may be required disclosure under NBFDS. The commenter would like to remind the AMS that the ingredient list on product packaging is the primary source of information for consumers when making a thoughtful purchase decision. Secondarily consumers may use the nutrition facts or food facts panels. The proposed final rule, including the various methods of disclosure, will fail to gain consumer trust if each ingredient on this list is not identified as GMO (“bioengineered”) or not. The Food and Drug Administration recently acknowledged a similar problem with its prior scheme to disclose hydrogenated fats (trans fats) on the food facts panel only if the amount per serving exceed 0.5 grams. Knowing that “No Trans Fat” almost surely meant that trans fats were in fact in the product, consumers turned to the ingredient list to confirm the inclusion of “hydrogenated vegetable oils” and similar ingredients that are, as suspected, trans fat. The commenter asks the AMS to avoid making the same mistake with GMO (“bioengineered”) food disclosures. Regardless of the text in the final rule, consumers will use their own knowledge and methods to identify hidden GMO (“bioengineered”) ingredients. If fully informed consumers becoming able to make fully informed choices is the goal of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, then the Standard should disclose all GMO (“bioengineered”) foods.

Partial List of GMO (“bioengineered”) Ingredients, Products, Materials and Processing Aids

Acetic acid Alcohol Alpha tocopherol Artificial flavorings Artificial sweeteners Ascorbates Ascorbic acid Aspartame (Artificial sweetener) Astaxanthin Baking powder Barley malt Bean curd BeneVia Bleached flour Blended sugar (sugaridextrose) Brown sugar (generally OK if no caramel color) Bulking agent Calcium citrate Calcium fumarate Calcium gluconate Calcium lactate Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) Calcium stearate Calcium stearoyl lactylate Canderel Canola oil Caramel and caramel color Carbonmethylcellulose sodium Carboxymethylcellulose Cellulose microcrystalline Cellulose, methyl Cellulose, powdered Cetearyl glucoside Choline chloride Citric acid Citrus cloud emulsion (CCS) Coco glycerides (cocoglycerides) Condensed milk Confectioners sugar Colorose Corn alcohol, corn gluten Corn extract Corn flour Corn masa Corn oil, corn oil margarine Corn starch Corn sweetener, corn sugar Corn syrup, corn syrup solids Corn, popcorn, cornmeal Cornstarch, cornflour Cottonseed oil Crosscarmellose sodium Crystalline dextrose Crystalline fructose Cyclodextrin Cysteine DATUM (a dough conditioner) Decyl glucoside Decyl polyglucose Dextrin Dextrose (also found in IV solutions) Dextrose anything (such as monohydrate or anhydrous) d-Gluconic acid diacetyl diglyceride Distilled white vinegar Drying agent E951 Edamame Erythorbic acid Erythritol Ethanol Ethocel 20 Ethylcellulose Ethylene Ethyl acetate Ethyl alcohol Ethyl lactate Ethyl maltol Fibersol-2 Flavorings (natural and artificial) Food starch Fructose Fruit juice concentrate Fumaric acid Germ/germ meal Gluconate Gluconic acid Glucono delta-lactone Gluconolactone Glucosamine Glucose Glucose syrup Glutamate Glutamic acid Gluten Gluten feed/meal Glycerides Glycerin Glycerol Glycerol monooleate Glycine Golden syrup Gum arabic Guar gum Grits Hemicellulose High fructose corn syrup Hominy Honey* Hydrogenated starch Hydrolyzed corn Hydrolyzed corn protein Hydrolyzed vegetable protein Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose pthalate (HPMCP) Inositol Invert syrup or sugar Iodized salt Isoflavones Kinako Koya dofu Lactate Lactic acid Lauryl glucoside Lecithin Leucine Linoleic acid Lysine Magnesium citrate Magnesium fumarate Magnesium stearate Maize Malic acid Malonic acid Malt syrup from corn Malt, malt extract Maltitol Malitolmaltose Maltodextrin Maltol Maltose Mannitol Methyl gluceth Methyl glucose Methyl glucoside Methylcellulose Microcrystaline cellulose Miso Milk powder Milo starch Modified cellulose gum Modified corn starch Modified food starch Molasses (corn syrup may be present; in molasses though it is usually from sugarcane) Mono- and di- glycerides Monosodium glutamate MSG Natural flavorings Natto Nutrasweet Okara (soybean pulp) Oleic acid Olestra/Olean Phenylalanine Polenta Polydextrose Polylactic acid (PLA) Polysorbates (e.g. Polysorbate 80) Polyvinyl acetate Potassium citrate Potassium fumarate Potassium gluconate Powdered sugar Pregelatinized starch Propionic acid Propylene glycol Propylene glycol monostearate Protein isolate Saccharin Salt (iodized salt) Semolina (unless from wheat) Shoyu Simethicone Sodium carboxymethylcellulose Sodium citrate Sodium erythorbate Sodium fumarate Sodium lactate Sodium starch glycolate Sodium stearoyl fumarate Sorbate Sorbic acid Sorbitan Sorbitol Sorghum (Pure sorghum is OK, but grain CAN be mixed with corn) Soy albumin Soy concentrate Soy fiber Soy flour Soy formula Soy grits Soy isolates Soy lecithin Soy milk Soy nuts Soy nut butter Soy oil Soy protein Soy protein isolate Soy sauce Soy sprouts Soya Soya flour Soybean curd Soybean granules Soybean flour Splenda (Artificial sweetener) Stabilizer Starch (any kind that’s not specified) Stearic acid Stearoyls Sucralose (Artificial sweetener) Sucrose Sugar (not identified as cane, can be from corn or sugarbeets) Supro Tamari Tempeh Teriyaki flavor/marinade Textured soy flour Texted soy protein Textured vegetable protein Thickener Threonine Tocopherol (vitamin E) Tofu Treacle (aka golden syrup) Trehalose Triethyl citrate Triglycerides Unmodified starch Vanilla, natural flavoring Vanilla, pure or extract Vanillin Vegetable anything that’s not specific (fat, gum, oil, etc) Vinegar, distilled white Vinyl acetate Vitamin C and Vitamin E Vitamins* (B vitamins especially) Xanthan gum Xylitol Yaki-dofu Yeast* Yuba Zea mays Zein

AMS also seeks comments on whether the lists, as defined by foods commercially available in the United States, should be expanded to include foods produced in other countries, and if so, what would be the rationale to utilize an international list of foods for the NBFDS and what would be the sources for obtaining accurate data about BE foods produced abroad.

COMMENT: The AMS should recognize that the food system has been globalized, and GMO (“bioengineered”) crops in particular have been stridently promoted within the US and ferociously evangelized in other countries by the USAID, US State Department, USDA, FDA, and other functionaries as part of a broad industry effort to create mass permanent contamination of the genomes of natural occurring crop species. The concept that a supra-national conglomerate operating around the globe, in close cooperation with other supra-national conglomerates, should be required to comply with GMO (“bioengineered”) disclosures only on products and ingredients produced within US borders is patently preposterous. Furthermore, food safety, identity preservation, and traceability methods and requirements are now inextricably embedded in the global food trade. There is likely no product in commercial trade that cannot be readily identified as GMO (“bioengineered”) throughout the chain of custody. That the producers, sellers and buyers would claim that the cost and complexity necessary to maintain global identity preservation of GMO (“bioengineered”) attributes is burdensome is not true. Feed corn is not fuel corn is not food corn is not sweet corn. Each variety is grown and used in unique ways through segregated supply chains that already depends on GMO (“bioengineered”) identity preservation. There is no cost or burden to disclosing already know information.

AMS invites comments on how often the lists should be reviewed and revised, as well as timeframes for compliance when foods are added to or deleted from these two lists.

COMMENT: Any ingredient subject to disclosure should be added to the AMS list at the time its introduction into the supply chain is first contemplated. The AMS should not have to chase down new products.

AMS seeks comments on whether these foods should be included on the initial list of commercially available BE foods that are not highly adopted. As well, comments are sought on practical ways to distinguish subsets of BE cultivars from non-BE cultivars, so as to minimize the compliance burden for regulated entities.

COMMENT: The AMS should acknowledge that all food, fuel, fiber and feed plants have been genetically modified (“bioengineered”) in anticipation of regulatory approval and commercialization. Thus, the only honest and comprehensive list of possible GMO (“bioengineered”) products, materials, ingredients and processing aids is: all of them. If a producer or manufacturer cannot show that an item on the list is not GMO (“bioengineered”), then it must be assumed to be GMO (“bioengineered”). Certified organic producers, processors and handlers may rely on their organic certificates. Conventional producers, processors and handlers may rely on recordkeeping and testing (which are the hallmarks of the organic certification program). In cases where genetic drift or comingling has contaminated an otherwise conventionally bred crop or lot in the supply chain, the contamination may not exceed allowable limits. Conversely, if the final rule only provides a short list of likely suspects, the AMS will have created a quagmire of unknowns for affected entities and the entire supply chain when, over the coming years, thousands of additional products, materials, ingredients and processing aids must be added to the list long after their introduction into commerce.

AMS seeks comments on whether such foods should be included on the lists and how AMS should describe them if added to either list. We request any information or data that may support the development of BE foods lists that promote the lowest cost policy and what the cost estimates of such lists may be.

COMMENT: The lowest cost policy would be to include all food, fuel, feed and fiber crops on the list. This method will eliminate any doubt, confusion, or inaccurate disclosures. If an affected entity believes a product, material, ingredient or processing aid does not require GMO (“bioengineered”) disclosure, then it should maintain records and certificates of analysis that support that belief. If the lists are not being updated continually, consider the consequences. When a GMO (“bioengineered”) organism is approved for commercialization, the AMS will allow up to a two-year delay before the plant or its derivatives is added to the list and requires disclosure. At any given point in time, a food label may then legally not disclose the presence of one or several GMO (“bioengineered”) products, materials, ingredients and processing aids. In such a case, the disclosure standard becomes meaningless or misleading to consumers. The proposed “BE” seal will come to mean “Beware”.

3. Factors and Conditions

a. Incidental Additives

As such, AMS seeks comment on whether, more generally, enzymes present in food should be considered “bioengineered food.”

COMMENT: Yes, all food additives and processing aids produced with GMO (bioengineering”) methods should be considered GMO (“bioengineered”) food and should be disclosed on packaging regardless of their relative presence or lack of presence in the final formulation of the product.

b. Undetectable Recombinant DNA

AMS seeks comment on inclusion of this proposed factor, which would exclude from the disclosure standard food products that demonstrate that modified genetic material cannot be detected, including how difficult it would be for regulated entities, especially small businesses, to implement it.

COMMENT: Consumers will not find it acceptable if food ingredients that were clearly produced using GMO (“bioengineered”) methods are not disclosed. The existence of genetic material is not relevant to most consumers. Their concerns about GMO (“bioengineered”) methods are not focused solely on residual genetic material. Rather, the entirety of the production methods and associated chemical inputs and negative consequences are the focus of their concern.

We also seek comment on alternative suggestions for other methods of demonstrating that modified genetic material cannot be detected.

COMMENT: Detection of residual genetic material is irrelevant to GMO (“bioengineering”) disclosure.

D. Exemptions

1. Food Served in a Restaurant or Similar Retail Food Establishment

2. Very Small Food Manufacturers

3. Threshold

a. Alternative 1-A

b. Alternative 1-B

c. Alternative 1-C

In addition to the two alternative thresholds proposed above, AMS seeks comment on another approach. AMS invites comments on the three alternative proposals, including on the administrative costs of creating and maintaining necessary records if they do not already exist. AMS also seeks specific comments on whether proposed threshold amounts should be increased or decreased, and the calculation and verification methods of each proposal.

COMMENT: The commenter would like to point out that a zero percent tolerance for the presence of GMO (“bioengineered”) material in food is the desired standard for many consumers, but the proposed rule does not present this choice as a choice. For the most part, it is no longer possible to find 100% uncontaminated supplies of crops that have been not been genetically modified (“bioengineered”) because of genetic drift while growing, comingled seed supplies, and comingling within the supply chain. The AMS should annotate the rule to explain that the .09% threshold is intended to decrease the number of products that may be exempted for GMO (“bioengineered”) disclosure, and that under no circumstances should the threshold be increased now or in the future because additional contamination has been allowed to occur. This “gene creep” has been the long-term strategy by GMO (“bioengineering”) industry interests to force a de facto acceptance of GMO (“bioengineered”) products: make it impossible to avoid them. Had the industry respected the freedom of Americans to choose whether or not to buy and consumers GMO (“bioengineered”) products, it might be in an ethical position to expand tolerances under the proposed rule. The industry did not act in good faith. Therefore, no allowance should be made for increased thresholds over 0.9% now or in the future.

AMS requests public comment on the threshold option that would present the lowest costs to regulated entities, and the estimated costs of such a policy.

COMMENT: The commenter notes that the potential incremental costs to the regulated entities in regard to thresholds should be acknowledged as de minimus compared to the vast externalized costs caused by the regulated entities that have deployed GMO (“bioengineered”) technologies in the US and across the globe. The AMS may wish to consider the existing studies of the costs to the environment, soil health, plant health, animal health, human health and community well-being that activities and products of these regulated industries have caused, and ask the question, instead, What is the savings to humanity if the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards slows the adoption of these destructive practices in even the smallest way?

4. Animals Fed With Bioengineered Feed and Their Products

The amended Act prohibits a food derived from an animal from being considered a BE food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a BE substance. 7 U.S.C. 1639b(b)(2)(A). Proposed § 66.5(d) would incorporate this statutory exemption. For example, eggs used in a baked good, where the eggs come from a chicken fed feed produced from BE corn and soy, would not be considered bioengineered solely on the basis of the chicken’s feed.

COMMENT: Feed is usually defined as plant material in the form of dry matter, grains and pulses, and animal or insect byproducts fed to animals to maintain energy and health. In the case of livestock, feed is intended to accelerate weight gain prior to slaughter or to support for milk or egg production. Nutritional supplements are added to feed to make up for missing nutrients in feed. Pharmaceutical treatments are added to feed, or given by injection, to support animal health in physically stressful environments, reduce pain, treat disease, and to promote rapid growth. Vaccines are given to livestock to induce immune defense against known bacterial and viral infections. Note that many nutritional supplements, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines are produced using GMO (“bioengineered”) organisms. The proposed rule does not fully address the issue of whether or not products from animals should be considered GMO (“bioengineered”) if they are supplemented, injected, or otherwise treated internally with GMO (“bioengineered”) materials. Since many of these pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements and vaccines generate residues in milk, meat, fat, and eggs that are often used in food products, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard should take into account their presence in finished products. Otherwise, the final rule will be ridiculed as meaninglessly vague. In addition, the methods, materials, and processes used to produce some nutritional supplements, pharmaceuticals and vaccines may cause significant concern for consumers. The AMS should consider whether livestock species have the ability to allay these consumer concerns merely because animals provide one degree of separation from the problem.

5. Food Certified Organic Under the National Organic Program

III. Disclosure: What will the disclosure look like?

A. General

1. Responsibility for Disclosure

AMS seeks comment on any impact this proposal might have on importers.

Comments are specifically invited on the degree to which elements of the labeling regulations between partner countries should be comparable and on the factors that should be considered in determining whether the U.S. would recognize another nation’s labeling regulations as comparable through a mutual recognition arrangement.

COMMENT: Currently all food sold in the United States must conform to all federal labeling standards. No exemption should be made for GMO (“bioengineered”) foods produced, processed, packaged or transshipped outside of the United States.

In addition to seeking comment on this proposal, AMS seeks comment from all stakeholders regarding any unique issues associated with BE disclosure for imports and on any potential impacts on international stakeholders.

AMS will also conduct a World Trade Organization (WTO) notification and would also welcome comments on any potential impacts offered by international stakeholders, recognizing the statutory authority and parameters of the amended Act.

COMMENT: The AMS should also conduct a thorough review of the United Nations Convention of Biodiversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biotechnology. This agreement, signed by 180 nations, provides significant detail on the consensus developed among global stakeholders on how to manage these emerging technologies.

2. Appearance of Disclosure

3. Placement of Disclosure

4. How BE Food Lists Relate to Disclosure

B. Text Disclosure

AMS seeks comment on several aspects of the proposed text disclosure options, including any use of the “may be” or “may contain” disclosures.

For example, should regulated entities be permitted to use a “may” disclosure for foods on the highly-adopted BE foods list?

Should regulated entities be permitted to use a “may” disclosure for foods on the non-highly adopted BE foods list even if their records provide certainty that the foods are bioengineered?

In addition, comments are requested on the potential impact of this proposal on recordkeeping activities, sourcing challenges, labeling costs, etc.

For BE food that is distributed solely in a U.S. territory, AMS proposes in § 66.102(c) that disclosure statements equivalent to those above be allowed in the predominant language of that territory. AMS believes this approach would make the BE food disclosure more accessible in territories where the predominant language is something other than English. AMS also believes this would allow regulated entities who only distribute food in a given territory to respond to consumer demand.

AMS invites comments on ideas that would make the proposed on-package text disclosure options more accessible.

1. High Adoption of Bioengineered Food

2. Non-High Adoption of Bioengineered Food

C. Symbol Disclosure

AMS invites comment on other reasonable modifications that would make the symbol easier to include on food packages, while still communicating the BE food disclosure to consumers.

COMMENT: The commenter reposts this text from the Amended Act with emphasis added:

As statutorily required, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, “for the purposes of regulations promulgated and food disclosures made pursuant to [section], a bioengineered food that has successfully completed the pre-market Federal regulatory review process shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart of the food solely because the food is bioengineered or produced or developed with the use of bioengineering.”

One must conclude from this text that Congress intended the symbols and seals related to GMO (“bioengineered”) foods to be neutral regarding not only safety but other attributes as well. Yet, the proposed GMO (“bioengineered”) seals are exuberant in design motif and colorization. To better accomplish Congressional intent, the AMS must abandon the proposed seals and revert to a purely information, neutrally designation. The AMS may wish to view the USDA Organic seal, for instance, which uses three muted colors and a neutral representation of agricultural crop rows. To make this point clear, here is a proposed GMO (“bioengineered”) seal next to the current USDA Organic seal.

And, here are two examples of what the USDA Organic log would look like if it was designed with the same preferential and enthusiastic point of view as the proposed GMO (“bioengineered”) seals:

In fact, the USDA Organic seal was specifically designed to not present organic food as better or different than conventional food when it was created in the early 1990s.

Here is how the proposed GMO (“bioengineered”) artwork would be applied to the USDA organic seal in order to maintain equivalent branding for consumers:

Given that the AMS also administers the USDA National Organic Program, perhaps a more professional and neutral GMO (“bioengineered”) seal could be developed that informs consumers without attempting to manipulate them.

We also invite comment on whether the word “Bioengineered” should be incorporated into the design of the chosen disclosure symbol.

COMMENT: The word “bioengineered” has never been used in relation to food before the Amended Act was drafted. Consumers know the terms “genetically engineered” or GE and “genetically modified” or “genetically modified organism” and GMO. Replacing a commonly used and understood word with a novel term causes confusing. To make matters worse, the European Union equivalent for USDA Organic is called “Biologique”. Thus, the proposed rule is promoting global consumer and regulatory confusion under the guise of mandating a simple disclosure. While the commenter understands that the AMS did not draft the statute, the AMS certainly should refuse to require or allow the use of the text “bioengineered” as a method of disclosure.

We also seek comment on whether the phrase “May be” should be incorporated into the design of one of the disclosure symbols above to account for “may” disclosures.

COMMENT: If they can’t prove it’s not, then it is. A manufacturer that cannot successfully source and formulate nonGMO (“non-bioengineered”) products, materials and processing aids should not be allowed to use the word May. It simply Is. The fundamental problem with allowing the use of May is that consumers will ignore it overtime. If the AMS intends to provide clarity and assurance to consumers, then May cannot be allowed.

AMS requests public comment, particularly available research findings and factual information, on the interpretation of each of the proposed symbol disclosures, specifically with regard to the following topics: (1) Perceptions, beliefs, or feelings in response to each of the proposed symbols; and (2) interpretation of the proposed symbols (i.e. what message a consumer would think each symbol is communicating).

COMMENT: Let’s take a look at the simplest of the proposed logos and some of the first-hand interpretations that it may cause:

“Why is there a shooting star? Oh, BE means BE your best self, like a shooting star. I get it!”

“Why does the flower only have four petals, and why is it wilting? Did the RoundUp get to it?”

“Why are the two block letters sinking into a pit of manure?”

“BE what? I’m confused. What I am supposed to BE?”

“I wonder if there is a pimento in that olive.”

“That means it’s GMO. No way it means that! You’re pulling my leg, right?”

“Where is the second E?

“BEware? BEgone? BEguiled? BEwitched? BEdeviled?

“Somebody botched that, whatever it is.”

It is safe to say that not one consumer will know this logo means. Not one.

We are aware that some entities may have completed or expect to complete before the end of the comment period research, investigative studies, surveys and/or focus groups with the intention of evaluating consumer perceptions of disclosure symbols. We would be glad to receive through the public comment process any information such entities would like to provide to further inform this rulemaking.

COMMENT: The commenter does not believe additional research on these proposed seals is necessary. Let’s just scrap them and start over.

D. Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure

We are not including examples for all statements that reflect changes in technology, and we invite comments on other statements that may reflect changes in electronic or digital link technology.

COMMENT: The commenter notes that the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard amended the The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). In Sec. 293 (b)(2)(D) congress stipulated:

“in accordance with subsection (d) [regarding methods of disclosure], [the USDA] require that the form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link, but excluding Internet website Uniform Resource Locators not embedded in the link, with the disclosure option to be selected by the food manufacturer;”

A close reading of this text concludes that the AMS may not require the use of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) as a disclosure. However, a URL is by far the best way to access and view information about a product online. There are many well established free services that will create a “shortened” URL of 15 of fewer characters which, when typed into any device with internet access, will pull up the subject page (whose full unshortened URL may be unlimited in length). The overarching failure of the proposed rule is that a consumer using a traditional phone cannot access this information, and a consumer using only a laptop, desktop or tablet cannot scan the secret symbols or dial or text a phone number. But, almost anyone can type in 15 characters into a web enabled device. The AMS should use its best efforts to inform affected entities that the shortened URL is the very best and potentially most widely used disclosure method, even if it is voluntary. Similarly, the AMS should use its best efforts to notify affected entities that URLs, including shortened URLs are not a prohibited disclosure method although by themselves they do not suffice as a fully compliant disclosure. The URL or shortened URL must link to a page that is compliant will all aspects of the NBFDS.

E. Study on Electronic or Digital Disclosure and a Text Message Disclosure Option

F. Small Food Manufacturers

We are not including examples for all statements that reflect changes in technology, and we invite comments on other statements that may reflect changes in electronic or digital link technology.

A close reading of this text concludes that the AMS may not require the use of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) as a disclosure. However, a URL is by far the best way to access and view information about a product online. There are many well established free services that will create a “shortened” URL of 15 of fewer characters which, when typed into any device with internet access, will pull up the subject page (whose full unshortened URL may be unlimited in length). The overarching failure of the proposed rule is that a consumer using a traditional phone cannot access this information, and a consumer with a laptop, desktop or tablet cannot scan the secret symbols or dial or text a phone number. But, almost anyone can type in 15 characters into a web enabled device. The AMS should use its best efforts to inform affected entities that the shortened URL is the very best and potentially most widely used disclosure method, even if it is voluntary. Similarly, the AMS should use its best efforts to notify affected entities that URLs, including shortened URLs are not a prohibited disclosure method although by themselves they do not suffice as a fully compliant disclosure. The URL or shortened URL must link to a page that is compliant will all aspects of the NBFDS.

1. Definition

2. Telephone Number

3. Internet Website

G. Small and Very Small Packages

COMMENT: If a small package can fit a phone number, it can fit a text disclosure or shortened URL. The AMS should bolster consumer confidence by requiring all food packages to carry human readable common-sense disclosures.

H. Foods Sold in Bulk Containers

I. Voluntary Disclosure

IV. Administrative Provisions

A. Recordkeeping Requirements

1. What Records Are Required

2. How Recordkeeping Applies to Disclosure

a. Non-Disclosure of Foods on Either List

b. Disclosure of Foods on Either List

3. Other Recordkeeping Provisions

AMS seeks comments on several aspects of the proposed recordkeeping requirements of the NBFDS, including:

(1) The types of customary and reasonable records kept by the various entities proposed to be regulated under this standard, and the costs associated with maintaining such records;

(2) Whether regulated entities should be required to verify the BE status of foods that bear the “bioengineered” or “contains a bioengineered ingredient” disclosure for foods on that list, through more than just a record showing that a particular food or ingredient is on the list;

COMMENT: A regulated entity should be encouraged to test foods if they are unsure of the status based on supply chain provenance and recordkeeping if the entity desires to avoid the need for disclosure.

(3) Whether regulated entities that choose to disclose the BE status of foods through any of the disclosure options should be required to maintain records regarding whether inputs are BE or not.

COMMENT: All of the records necessary to comply with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard are already required by other laws and regulations, in particular the Food Safety Modernization Act. There is no additional cost or required delay to comply with these recordkeeping requirements. The commenter encourages the AMS to coordinate with other federal agencies to better understand what recordkeeping and records access is already required and enforced.

(4) Whether the lists should be consolidated into one list of commercially available foods and the “may” disclosure be made available for all BE foods. With consolidation of the list, entities labeling foods on the BE list would not be required to maintain records as long as they display any of the disclosure options. AMS seeks comment on the potential impact and any burdens associated with consolidating the lists into one list of commercially available BE foods;

(5) The proposed timelines for providing records if requested by AMS for review during an audit or investigation; and

(6) The types of recordkeeping policies that could further reduce costs for affected entities and what the cost estimates would be for such policies.

B. Enforcement

C. Proposed Effective and Initial Compliance Dates

We invite comment on the proposed compliance dates.

COMMENT: The initial compliance date of January 1, 2020 is more than enough time for affected entities to make the necessary changes to achieve compliance. The commenter is more concerned that some entities will request and be granted further time to comply. The AMS should inform industry that the above proposed dates are in fact firm.

D. Use of Existing Label Inventories

We invite comment on this approach.

COMMENT: The AMS appears to be making the assumption that vast quantities of labels are printed for use far into the future. This is incorrect. The economics of scale for most product labels are no longer valuable after 1 million imprints. On many other smaller runs, the largest costs are investments in the design work and regulatory approval rather than the printed material itself. In many cases, labels are simply printed on demand using digital printing equipment. Most manufacturers use the smallest economical run in order to accommodate future changes to ingredients or formulations. Unused label stock or printed packaging is not a significant issue.

The commenter does not agree that an affected entity should be allowed to unilaterally state that it has back stock of labels that need to be used before making changes to comply with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. By providing a blanket exemption for unused label stock, the AMS is encouraging fraud and illegal delays in compliance. Instead of a vague exception, the AMS should actively encourage affected entities to update product labels with compliant long before the final compliance deadline. The compliance deadline should not be used as a signal to buy in additional large quantities of noncompliant labels. To manage this unintended consequence, while still providing regulatory flexibility, the AMS should limit the number of labels that can be used after the compliance deadline. Or, the AMS could require affected entities to disclose the number of excess non-compliant labels they intend to use after the compliance deadline and compare it to the normal use and replenishment schedule prior to the deadline.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

USDA seeks comments and data on the estimated impacts of this rulemaking that may affect its designation under Executive Order 12866 and the Congressional Review Act.

COMMENT: As referenced in the attached Notice of Dissent, the AMS must take into account the high costs associated with GMO (“bioengineered”) production methods and practices before a proper weighing of the cost of labeling GMO (“bioengineered”) products in the marketplace.

USDA also requests public comment on the estimated impacts of the rule, specifically whether there is information or data that may inform whether or not the market will experience a decrease in BE products/ingredients and what the impacts of the disclosure standard are on consumer choice and purchasing behaviors.

COMMENT: Consumers have already spoken on this issue. Over 20% of produce sold in the US is now certified organic. This increase in purchasing, which has lead an increase in production, was only possible because a clear standard was created and the standard was represented by the USDA Organic seal. Consumer choice about GMO (“bioengineered”) products has been clouded by obfuscation tactics and a barrage of misinformation from an army of paid influencers. The biotech industries resisted GMO (“bioengineered”) disclosures since consumers first rejected the first GMO tomato. However, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard appears to be awash in exemptions and foggy conceptualizations that will not successfully address the dynamic development of new crops, foods, and technologies.

In addition, USDA seeks comments and request any data or information on what impacts the disclosure standard may have on current and future innovation in the areas of crop biotechnology and food manufacturing and how such impacts on innovation may affect rural communities.

COMMENT: The historic impacts of GMO (“bioengineered”) cropping systems have been disastrous for rural communities. Any reduction in further innovations, which has only benefited a small oligopoly of chemical, seed, and aggregation companies, would be a welcome respite from the relentless predatory drain of seed prices, technology agreements, fertilizers for dead soil, low price commodity contracts and livestock and dairy prices well under the cost of production. The AMS should take full stock of what GMO (“bioengineering”) has wrought on American farm families. Innovation needs to pull back from exploitative and anti-competitive technology and refocus on rural economic development at the county level, where value added processing and community infrastructure have disappeared. The USDA spends millions on rural areas out of one taxpayer pocket, then turns around and undermines rural America by enforcing the use of GMO (“bioengineered”) crops, cropping systems and vertically integrated market capture. There is no downside to stopping this madness.

Notice of Dissent

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard uses a framework that is too narrowly focused on the concept of food safety and thus fails to address a myriad of other issues that are significant and compelling to the common good of the American public. This dissent raises some of these issues and places them on the public record in the docket. The commenter’s submission of comments to the federal docket is performed under protest and should not be construed as an endorsement of the NGBDS framework.

Issues with GMO (“bioengineered”) foods beyond the narrow concept of their safety:

Fertilizer dependent soils

Soil used to grow genetically modified (“bioengineered”) crops has significantly reduced biological activity, moisture retention, and micronutrient availability. The complex web of soil fungus, microbes, insects, animals and plants is disrupted by repeated Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium (NPK) applications required by agricultural production systems engineered to accommodate the sale of proprietary herbicides and genetically modified (“bioengineered”) crop varieties. Whether or not industry efforts to convince them that genetically modified (“bioengineered”) crops are safe to consume have been successful, consumers educated about soil biology remain concerned that production methods and inputs are undermining our nation’s ability to successfully adapt food production to the new realities of weather unpredictability and changes in water availability and cost, and loss of topsoil. In addition, it is clear that disruptions to the supply, cost and local availability of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and other inputs will occur in the future due to the limited supply of raw materials need to produce them, including non-renewable natural gas and crude oil reserves. Finally, the leaching of these materials into waterways has caused groundwater contamination, algae blooms and other significant problems. Building a food system on a shifting and ephemeral foundation does not make sense.

Loss of plant genetic diversity

Not long ago, American farmers planted over 400 varieties of corn alone. Now, only 12 varieties predominate on 100 million acres of monoculture GMO (“bioengineered”) crop production. Simultaneously, insect, fungus, and weed pressure has increased as each species of pest can more easily adapt to fewer hosts with less genetic diversity. Contrary to industry claims, the use of pesticides has not diminished with the introduction of GMO (“bioengineered”) crops. Herbicide, insecticide and fungicide us as increase four-fold because poor soil health and monoculture systems create an advantage for opportunistic pests. Insects in general, both beneficial and antagonistic varieties, have been reduced by 75% in the last 30 years. Pollinators such as bees are undergoing global collapse.

Contribution to negative effects of CAFO operations

GMO (“bioengineered”) crops are integral to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Instead of pastured beef, pork and poultry, animals are keep in unvegetated lots and feed rations grown on surrounding land. The land suffers in two ways: the chemical fertilizers and herbicides reduce soil biological activity and moisture holding capacity, while the liquified fecal matter and urine from the animals is disposed of by spraying it on the land. However, the liquified waste is contaminated with artificial hormones, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical was from heavily treated animals, the residues of crop treatments found on the feed, the aquatic growth preventatives used on manure lagoons, and the insecticides used to kill fly larvae on the lagoon surface. The waste has little nutritional value and tends to suppress the growth of plants where it is sprayed. When the contents of manure lagoons are released into ground water, well water, and waterways, water can become unpotable and aquatic life is poisoned and killed off en masse.

Consumption of non-renewable resources

GMO (bioengineered) cropping systems depend on non-renewable natural gas, crude oil, and mineral reserves to produce chemical inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. These resources are already becoming more expensive and scarce. When the scarcity and cost increase rapidly in the future, the food, feed, fuel and fiber industry that depend on them will become stressed beyond repair. The safety of GMO (bioengineered) products as food is a worry, but it is the least of our worries. The consequences of building an agricultural system on an eroding foundation of limited resources should be what we measure.

Pervasive toxic contamination

Most of the materials used in GMO (“bioengineered”) crop systems are found in the animal and human food supply and water supply, from where they enter the human gut biome, breast milk, urine and feces. The consequences of this pervasive poisoning are only now being studied. The 2011 patent warded for the use of glyphosate as an antibiotic has raised many questions about its long-term effect on human and animal health. Studies undertaken by the makers of glyphosate on rodents have used only the pure glyphosate molecule in diet studies for 30 days. They have not studied animals over a lifetime or generations. They have also avoided studying the full formulation of the products that carry glyphosate in solution to cause it to penetrate plant defenses and cause systemic failure to respond to diseases. Some researchers have pointed out that the combined materials in the herbicides used in GMO (“bioengineered”) cropping systems may be 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. The instances of complex chronic human disease has doubled in the last 30 years. These conditions, like diabetes, cancer, asthma, MS, lupus, obesity, auto-immune, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and others, result from systemic causes through nutritional, environmental toxins, pharmaceutical, and genetic/epigenetic effects. Clearly, the toxic load from novel materials related to GMO (bioengineered) cropping systems is part of this complex problem. GMO (bioengineered) crops are used to feed animals in unhealthy confined conditions which require GMO (bioengineered) antibiotics to keep the animals alive. 80% of these medicines are released into urine and feces, which is sprayed on crops that re-enter the food supply. While we can mock consumers fears that this cycled contributes to the decline in human health, we cannot say it is not a contributing factor. Consumers must have the ability to choose to avoid these materials.

Weakened community food resilience.

One grave unintended consequence, for which no cost accounting has been done, is the elimination of food production in communities where GMO (bioengineered) crops are sprayed with herbicides. Farmers have found growing food to be incompatible with these herbicide applications, since the sprays are broadcast widely, often by aerial application, and drift for long distances even without wind to carry them. The evaporation and slow drift above ground of these herbicides takes place for several days after application. In the past, there have been a smattering of reports of herbicide drift onto conventional and organic crops. The new formulations of herbicides using glyphosate plus Dicamba or 2,4-D have proven much more likely to draft and kill unintended targets. Dicamba and 2, 4-D are known to be highly toxic to humans.

Undermining transparent scientific inquiry

Many consumers assume that the materials applied to GMO (bioengineered) crops have been proven safe. However, the industry that produces the affected seeds, fertilizers and herbicides has effectively quelled transparent scientific inquiry into the safety and efficacy of these products. Most plant research institutes, especially at land grand colleges, are now dependent on industry funding of research and professorial positions. Industry determines what research will be pursued, who will be hired, who is offered tenure, which topics are discussed at symposia and conferences, etc. Published research findings and conclusions are closely guarded and controlled prior to release, since grants and technology licenses give final approval to industry interests. Many consumers are now wise to this capture of our public and private research institutions by GMO (bioengineered) industry interests.

Surreptitious obfuscation campaigns.

GMO (bioengineered) crops are thus widely and rightly suspected by consumers. Industry has undertaken a long term global effort to create a body of surreptitious influencers including “moms”, researchers, policy analysts, office holders, media writers, editors and others. The carefully coordinated, focused and positioned talking points of these operatives have successfully framed the issue as a question of whether or not GMO (“bioengineered”) food is safe. Indeed, the entire National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act is predicated on that fictional framework. As has been reported above, the number of concerns, unanswered questions, and known toxic effects of the overall GMO )”bioengineered”) cropping system points to its unquestioned failure. Furthermore, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard only accounts for costs to industry to appropriately disclose the use or presence of GMO (“bioengineered”) ingredients. It does not contemplate, let alone answer, the question of the current measurable externalized costs to humans, animal welfare, environmental degradation, or the potential externalized costs to future generations in terms of health, food security, ecological resilience, etc. We are like blind men touching only the tail of an elephant for the first time and being asked to describe the whole animal.

It’s important to note that the sum total of the United States regulatory effort to come to grips with the creation of novel modified living organisms has come down to this narrowminded and nearsighted federal docket requesting comments how best to disclose their presence in human food. When activists decry the capture of the EPA, FDA and USDA by industry interests, this docket is proof, once and for all, of industry’s success.

Economic colonialization: Control by the supranational consortium

Perhaps the most pernicious problem with GMO (“bioengineered”) cropping systems is the loss of freedom among producers, consumers, communities and governments to make free choices. A very small set of interconnected global corporations now control much of our land, seed genetics, fertilizer, pesticides, harvesting, aggregation, distribution, processing, and marketing. In many cases, the only choice left to the American farmer is the one choice that benefits these corporate interests, GMO (“bioengineered”) crops. While these interests may have the right to compete, grow, collude, integrate and dominate, the results may not benefit all of society. Moreover, the results may lead us toward a dystopian future, and, worse, may preclude us from changing course as needed. The great American agricultural colony, which roughly coincides with the US states that make up the GMO (“bioengineered”) corn and soy belt, no longer have any choice but to comply with the production demands and agricultural practices dictated by the food, fuel and feed conglomerates. Few areas are safe for conventional crops. Only large-scale operations can make a profit on the low prices paid. Growing vegetables is slow economic suicide. Local processing, storage and value-added plants have been bought up and destroyed. Cattle and poultry are a sure way to lose.

The agricultural colleges and universities, allied with the Farm Bureau, display unilateral allegiance to chemical-intensive monoculture and vertically integrated capture of the agricultural economy. They work to prevent the development of alternatives that threaten their dominance. Legislatures are beholden to campaign contributions from wealthy participants – personal and corporate – in the extractive colonial system. Like in all of history, big landowners are happy to defend the system and give courage to politicians who may think, briefly, of advocating for the needs of less affluent constituents.

These comments represent only part of the universe of consumer concerns about GMO (“bioengineered”) food. It was never just about food safety. It is not an irrational fear. It’s science-based and concretely observed evidence of the totality of negative effects on our world. This comment in no way criticizes American farmers’ choices, but it does criticize their lack of choices. Until we are free from the entanglements of predatory global control of agriculture, our farmers will make the best choices they can from the few choices offered them.

AP Lewis

Root Cause Advocacy

Bioengineered Food Disclosure

Like this:

Related

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

AP Lewis

Root Cause Advocacy

Bioengineered Food Disclosure

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from AP Lewis