HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0480.025 2010-2012 Page 1 of 6
a Laura • 1 (DUI= L"
Murashige, GCm}tit �{
From: liza franzoni [lizafranzoni @hotmail.com] oho /O•S277 By
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:41 AM Dqh— �,-ti �e ...,...,,,•
County aounrll
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us; cohmayor @co.hawaii.hi.us; Dominic Yagong;
dikeda @co.hawaii.hi.us;jyoshimoto @co.hawaii.hi.us; donishi @co.hawaii.hi.us;
fblas @co.hawaii.hi.us; bsmart @co.hawaii.hi.us; bford @co.hawaii.hi.us;
apilago @co.hawaii.hi.us; phoffman @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Vote YES on GMO Labeling
Attachments: why County of Hawaii should support GMO Labeling.docx
To Hawaii County Council Members: Please vote in support of the labeling of GMO products.
This is why the Hawaii County Council should support GMO labeling:
Labeling constitutes informed consent for people to choose if they want to consume GMO's
Internationally, the US claims that regulating GMO foods violates free trade agreements, while the EU's
counter-position is that free trade is not truly free without informed consent
Evidence to support labeling of GMO's
1. Can't trust the federal government to protect Hawaiians from the health or
environmental threats of GMO
Wikileaks revealed that the US is pushing GMO's on other countries—why? Because the revolving door
between industry and government has created a situation where the very people who are supposed to
be regulating the industries are from the industries themselves.
i. Case in point: Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive and chief lobbyist, was appointed in 2009
to the FDA as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner. His duties include identifying capacity needs and
regulatory priorities and planning implementation of new food safety legislation
The burden of proof for the safety rests with the GMO industry, which is an inherent conflict of
interest.
i. These two statements from industry are in direct conflict on this topic: "Monsanto should not have to
vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its
safety is the FDA's job."—Phil Angell, Monsanto's former Director of Corporate Communications.; and
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."—FDA Federal Register,
Statement of Policy
Even if the FDA were taking responsibility, they could not perform adequately per their own internal
report. The FDA evaluating its scientific mission in 2007, stated that: "the FDA cannot fulfill its mission
because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.'The FDA has
consequently relied on biotech to prove its own safety.
The FDA has declared that GMO foods are essentially the same through the doctrine of substantial
equivalence, in which two foods are declared enough alike that they are essentially the same. As a
Comm. N kQ• 2S
Ref. To:
12/6/2011 Ref. Date 201E
Labeling constitutes informed consent for people to choose if they want to consume
GMO's
Internationally, the US claims that regulating GMO foods violates free trade agreements,
while the EU's counter-position is that free trade is not truly free without informed
consent
Evidence to support labeling of GMO's
1. Can't trust the federal government to protect Hawaiians from the health or
environmental threats of GMO
Wikileaks revealed that the US is pushing GMO's on other countries—why? Because the
revolving door between industry and government has created a situation where the very
people who are supposed to be regulating the industries are from the industries
themselves.
i. Case in point: Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive and chief lobbyist, was
appointed in 2009 to the FDA as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner. His duties include
identifying capacity needs and regulatory priorities and planning implementation of new
food safety legislation
The burden of proof for the safety rests with the GMO industry, which is an inherent
conflict of interest.
i. These two statements from industry are in direct conflict on this topic: "Monsanto
should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest in selling as much
of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."—Phil Angell, Monsanto's former
Director of Corporate Communications.; and "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is
responsible for assuring safety."—FDA Federal Register, Statement of Policy
Even if the FDA were taking responsibility, they could not perform adequately per their
own internal report. The FDA evaluating its scientific mission in 2007, stated that: "the
FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific
organizational structure is weak."The FDA has consequently relied on biotech to prove
its own safety.
The FDA has declared that GMO foods are essentially the same through the doctrine of
substantial equivalence, in which two foods are declared enough alike that they are
essentially the same. As a result, they do not require food safety testing. Anyone who
claims that the FDA has already tested GMO foods for safety is not aware that GMO
foods actually have not been tested by the FDA and not adequately tested by the
industry. Meanwhile, GMOs are approved for market.
2. GMO industry science is faulty
The norm for research in the GMO industry is short term, on animals, and with a
tendency towards skewing and manipulating data.
Page 2 of 6
result, they do not require food safety testing. Anyone who claims that the FDA has already tested
GMO foods for safety is not aware that GMO foods actually have not been tested by the FDA and not
adequately tested by the industry. Meanwhile, GMOs are approved for market.
2. GMO industry science is faulty
The norm for research in the GMO industry is short term, on animals, and with a tendency towards
skewing and manipulating data.
For example, in Monsanto's insecticide producing GMO corn, MON863, the company withheld evidence
for more than a year from European regulators, finally turning the evidence over a year later on order
of a German court. The full study revealed rats fed MON863 had lower kidney weights and elevated
white blood cell counts compared to rats fed conventional corn.
3. Unexpected Health Effects of GMO consumption
With the nature of GMO science being so inexact and untested in the long term, unexpected health
effects should be considered the norm, not the exception.
In multiple studies involving GMO ingestion, the inability to reproduce--aka sterility--is exhibited, as is a
sharp increase in infant mortality. Genes from the GMO product
RoundUp Ready Soy have also been known to transfer to bacteria in the mouth and gut of humans.
This is called horizontal gene transfer, and shows the potential for bacteria to take up antibiotic
resistant genes. Essentially, we are transferring to ourselves resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria would
then become resistant to the antibiotics we use to combat disease and fail to be cured by antibiotics.
Other health effects include problems with blood cell, kidney, and liver formation, as exhibited by rats
fed Monsanto MON863 corn.
4. Precautionary Principle supports labeling
Definition of: "when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically."
"Today's regulatory system essentially allows anything to be released into nature unless it is proven
unsafe by scientific data, which is defined to mean measurable harm. In practice, this means that
preventive action is not taken until damage has already been done."--Trust Us! We're experts, p. 125
Industry will claim it wants to "assess risks with sound science"while the environmentalist will talk
about"acting to mitigate potential risks before they appear."
To industry, sound science is their science, the science that supports their point of view
12/6/2011
Page 3 of 6
5. Labeling has proven to be the Achilles Heel of the GMO industry
By giving the consumer choice, they become aware of GMO's which frequently disrupts biotech sales.
Labeling effectively facilitates consumers having the choice to vote with a highly effective tool—their
wallet.
In the EU, consumers demanded labeling of GMO products. As a result, over 16 multinational food
corporations, including Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, Heinz, Mars, Kelloggs, Campbell Foods, Cadbury
Schweppes and Kraft/ Jacobs/ Suchar already make GMO and non-GMO versions of the same products
for sale in the EU to meet market demand for their non-GMO products.
Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming, and the GMO industry fights this because
when given the choice consumers don't choose their products (see below for stats).
We must support our right to know and choose, protect our health, and not give in to biotech's agenda
for our food.
Anti-labeling proponents claim it is too expensive to label, but the solution could be a simple as a
sticker:
Hawaii could have an import rule for manufacturers to state whether their product is intended to be
GMO or GMO free, and whether it has been tested.
Even the smallest producers would not be hindered with use of an additive sticker method, so there is
no economic stumbling block for even the smallest mom and pop operation to sell products in Hawaii.
Not only is there a simple solution to labeling, even if there weren't, the potential threat to our health
should not be determined based on inconvenience or cost– there is too much at stake.
6. Consumer Choice is a resounding NO!
In surveys, an overwhelming majority have held that GM foods should be labeled as genetically
modified.
i. A July 2003 ABC News survey found that a near-unanimous 92% felt that "the federal government
should...require labels on food saying whether or not it has been genetically modified or bio-
engineered." Only 6% believed the government should not require labeling. In June 2000, a Harris
Interactive poll found that 86% believe "the government should require the labeling of all packaged
and other food products" stating that they contain ingredients that "have come from genetically
modified crops." Just 13% felt that such labeling is "not important". Likewise, 82% told Time/CNN
pollsters in December 1998 that "genetically engineered food should be labeled as such."
7. Stumbling blocks to labeling:
12/6/2011
Page 4 of 6
The plantation mentality of Hawaii has sought a solution to failing plantations:
i. Exchanging one set of producers—sugar and pineapple—for another, biotech agriculture is not a
solution
ii. Companies that are testing in Hawaii behave as if it is in Hawaii's best interest to support biotech
because biotech creates jobs, but in reality biotech has also lost jobs by contaminating our non-GMO
crops which were once highly sought after.
iii. The bottom line is that the new plantations, Monsanto et al, do not want products labeled not
because it is prohibitively expensive, but because consumers don't choose to risk their health on GM
foods; the real economic problem is lack of desire for their product.
"The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMO's] that there's nothing
you can do about it. You just sort of surrender."—Don Westfall, Industry Consultant, Washington DC-
based Promar International (link here).
i. Accidental contamination of Papaya as a case in point
The main sources of papaya contamination come from two sources. First, there's the cross-pollination
of the trees from the wind that carries the seeds. The fruit that's produced by the tree is still non-GMO,
but the seeds produced within that fruit are GM contaminated. Second, because people eat papaya and
just throw the seeds away, or throw them out into the fields, they can grow in the wild. So people
inadvertently spread the seeds of the genetically engineered varieties.
No labeling only benefits the producers, both in terms of profit and plausible deniability. If we do not
label it, we cannot track it; if we cannot track it, we cannot prove or disprove it was responsible for
food allergies or illnesses. To choose to obstruct the ability of not only individuals but entire societies to
evaluate the impact of GMO's on their health is disingenuous at best and life threatening at worst. The
people of Hawaii deserve the opportunity to make an informed choice when selecting what foods to eat
for their health and safety.
8. Not labeling GMO's harms Hawaiian agriculture
i. According to a 2010 article in the Honolulu Star, exports of Hawai'i-grown papaya hit at least a 13-
year low in 2009, with exports falling to $5.8 million, an 18% decline from 2008, according to data
from Foreign Trade Zone No. 9, which is the hub for Hawai'i's international trade.
ii. Sales to Japan, once Hawai'i's largest export market, fell 43 percent to $1.2 million in 2009 from
$2.1 million in 2008. That's down from $15.1 million in papaya exports to Japan in 1996, which was
two years before genetically modified Rainbow papaya was introduced.
iii. While Japan has agreed to begin import of GMO papaya's as early as December of this year, there
still remains the hurtle of public acceptance for buying a GM papaya over a non-GMO papaya at a
similar price. Japan requires that the GMO papayas be labeled as a genetically modified food.
Previously, the Hawaii papaya growers have not had to notify their consumers about the GMO status of
their papayas. Why should Japan know if their papaya is GMO and Hawaiians not have access to this
information? We are only hurting ourselves, and the long term viability of valuable agricultural crops.
12/6/2011
Page 5 of 6
9. Labeling required to trace GMO products in the food chain for creation of new food
allergies and aggravation of existing ones
Without labeling, there is no traceability of products in the food chain to track food illnesses or
allergies. As new genetic mutations are introduced into the food chain--aka GMO's--it is imperative to
have the data to track responses to ensure food safety, especially for those with allergies.
In a 2005 independent lab study, mice fed GM peas showed an immune response, with inflammation of
the lungs and increased serum antibody levels. The protein from the natural version of the same gene
in beans does not cause these responses. Essentially, an allergy and adverse immune response was
created.
Also, an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic
engineering. For example, a gene from the Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made the soy allergenic to
those who normally react to Brazil nuts.
Without labeling, those with known allergies to foods would not have the opportunity to identify the
"new" GMO food with the same protein as the food they are allergic to.
One case in point is the link between peanut and soy allergies. GMO soy has been shown to contain a '
protein 41% identical to peanuts, a known relative to soy. Someone
eating GMO soy with a peanut allergy would be risking illness and even death from anaphylaxis
reactions without knowing it. Labeling is imperative for their health and safety.
i. Emily Vonder Meulen, a 13-year old with a severe peanut allergy — but no known soy allergy — died in
2006 of anaphylactic shock probably triggered by a tiny amount of"hidden"soy in a peanut-free
Subway sandwich
Food allergies are on the rise in children, according to the largest study of its kind published this
summer. Without labeling, it is impossible to say whether they are allergic to just those foods or to the
GMO version of the foods with their demonstrated potential to create allergic reactions outside of the
response to the the same non-GMO product.
i. "The large, population-based nature of this study shows that pediatric food allergy is a significant and
growing problem in our society,"said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Children's Memorial
Hospital,. "Based on our data, about 1 in every 13 children has a food allergy. What's more, nearly 2
out of every 5 affected children suffer from a severe food-allergy. For these children, accidental
ingestion of an allergenic food may lead to difficulty breathing, a sharp drop in blood pressure, and
even death. Now that we understand just how far-reaching the problem of food allergy truly is, we can
begin taking the necessary steps to keep these children safe."
10. BT toxin is not broken down in the digestive track
12/6/2011
Page 6 of 6
A landmark new study out of Canada from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the
University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can. has proven that Bt toxin, which is used in GM
corn and other crops, definitively makes its way into the blood supply, contrary to what Big Bio claims -
- and this toxin was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women tested.
Published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the study explains that Bt toxin enters the body not
only through direct consumption of GMOs, but also from consumption of meat, milk and eggs from
animals whose feed contains GMOs. Among all women tested, 80 percent of the pregnant group tested
positive for Bt toxin in their babies' umbilical cords, and 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested
positive for Bt toxin.
The only reason many countries approved GM crops in the first place was because they were told that
GM crops were no different than conventional crops. The biotechnology industry has purported for
years that the alterations and chemicals used in GM crop cultivation pose no risk whatsoever to human
health, and that any GM substances that remain in food are broken down in the digestive system.
Respectfully yours,
Liza Franzoni, District 1
P.O. Box 73
Paauilo, HI 96776
12/6/2011