The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0177.001 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1 FICAUNCEL, Murashige, Laura RE5. g0:-13 CoMtvt. 177 From: egroyes11-politics@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:05 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: GMO labeling Attachments: HB174GMOLabeling.doc Hawaii County Council Meeting 3-28/13 in Kona, HI RE: GMO Labeling Resolution Aloha Hawaii County Council Chairman and Committee: I wish to submit to you the testimony I recently sent to the State Legislature on the GMO labeling bill. What you do it important as a precedent for all of Hawaii. I urge you you endorse GMO labeling in no uncertain terms. Thank you, Gene Groves Comm. Nch4.,.....11. 1 Ref.ToL_EL_Va..., Ref. Date MAR 2 A 21113 3/27/2013 Testimony on HB1 74 to the Senate Agriculture, Commerce and Consumer Protection, and Health Committees on Thursday, 03-21 -13 9:00 AM in conference room 229. RE: LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD PRODUCTS 3/19/13 Honorable Chairpersons and Committee Members, Producers and distributors frequently argue against requiring GE labeling contending that it will increase the cost of food for consumers, as well as that it will make clearly visible to consumers a distinction they argue is of no consequence. What this controversy is really about is that the financial interests in GE crops will most likely lose market share and profits if consumers know what they are getting. In fact, Whole Foods Market reported that its sales of non-GMO products increased between 1 5% and 30% once they were labeled (TIME magazine, March 8, 201 3)! I believe that government should protect the public's interest in the right of informed choice in the operation of a free market rather than protecting the continuing profits and market share of special interests propped up by withholding information from the consumer. I strongly support requiring labeling of GMO food products, 1 ) Regarding potential price increases, I have seen no real evidence of actual significant price increases in the nearly 50 countries where GE labeling has been required. No significant increase in food prices were observed in the EU after passage of the initial labeling requirement. Mr. David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection indicated in 2001 that ". . . when the labeling regime (based on DNA/protein) was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double- digit) prediction of some interests. Similarly, when Norway introduced its current labeling regime (similar to the one now proposed), it did not provoke any price increase or disruption in trade." (Speech/01/378, European Parliament, Brussels, 11 September 2001 ). 2) In regard to the actual evidence of potential price increases in the United States, law Professor Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey wrote an assessment of the cost of GE labeling based, in large part, on FDA cost analysis of the impact of changes in labeling requirements. She concluded that if Prop 37 were adopted in California last year, "At most, the average California household will see total annual food expenditures increase by a one-time cost of $1 .27 to offset these labeling expenses."(Economic Assessment: Proposed California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (Prop 37) Likely to Cause No Change in Food Prices, Minor Litigation Costs, and Negligible Administrative Costs. Prepared for Emory University School of Law, 2012). Furthermore, she cited an FDA estimate that three-quarters of package labels are normally scheduled to be changed during any 30 month period (Food and Drug Administration, Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrition Content Claims, and Health Claims, 68 Federal Register 41477(2003)). Costs and contents are regularly being tracked, and labels periodically updated all the time. With a reasonable compliance period the proposed labeling changes can be part of the normal update process. 3) But many GE labeling opponents argue that the larger impact will be in more expensive cost of the food itself and its processing for the average consumer. In California, opponents of the Right to Know conducted a massive PR campaign in the final days before the vote claiming that requiring labeling would cost the average household $350-$400 annually. (Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, October 1 1 , 2012). This, or course, was based on a 'worst case' assumptions where producers substituted all non- GMO foods for the GMO food products. And even for the `worst case' this estimate has been challenged by multiple sources as being quite unrealistic (viz., Shepherd-Bailey, and Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, supra). But the argument that producers and suppliers would have to change out most of their products if they had to be labeled is for me actually one of the strongest arguments for requiring GE labeling! The producers and distributors are clearly acknowledging that they are not supplying the consumer what we want, and that if we actually knew what we are getting many of us would not buy what they now are putting on the shelves. And even if non-GMO conventional food, and especially certified organic food, were a bit more expensive, whether to purchase GMO or non-GMO products should be a consumer choice. Likely still a significant percentage of families won't want to spend a possible few extra dollars each week to buy organic and/or non-GMO produce. I have great confidence that innovative producers will continue to be happy to supply them with GMO foods at no significant increase in cost. A basic tenant of the free market system is that the producers and suppliers who best respond to consumer demand thrive and those who don't lose business. Most of us don't take lightly to businesses either getting government subsidies to keep producing what people don't want, or effectively getting a green light from the government to continue to sell us what we would not buy if we knew what it was. 4) GE labeling opponents strongly argue that GE foods `do not differ from' the non-GE foods that they are derived from, and `do not pose a health issue' (see, for example Maui Chamber of Commerce testimony to the House Agriculture Committee on February 4, 201 2), even though some genetic modifications, such as for Bt corn, are actually promoted as pesticides. I have seen hundreds of studies and documentations from around the world that raise serious concerns about GMO foods. I am also aware of the legal restriction against unapproved research that Monsanto, Syngenta, et. al. have tried to impose on all purchasers of their seeds that has stifled independent scientific research (see Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers, A Report By the Center For Food Safety & Save Our Seeds, 201 3). However, the issue here is more about the right of consumers to know what we are getting and make our own decisions about what is important to us. The recent outrage in Europe about beef products containing some horsemeat is instructive in this regard. It can be argued that horsemeat may be even more nutritious in many regards than beef (Nutritional Characteristics of Horsemeat in Comparison to those of Beef and Pork, journal of Nutritional Research and Practice, 2007 Spring: 1 (1 ):70-72). Yet many consumers, especially in the British Isles, demanded not to eat any horsemeat, and the government regulatory agencies and justice departments took prompt and decisive action to make sure consumer demand was satisfied, prompting extensive recalls and genetic testing of products. Likewise, I believe that many of the genetic modifications to our foods are much more radical than simple hybridization or selective breeding, resulting in significantly different products in the consumers' minds, and thus should be labeled as such. I believe it is one purpose of government is to help insure transparency of information that the public considers important in our decision-making. I strongly urge you to mandate full labeling of products that are, or come from seed that are, genetically engineered, not only because of potential health issues that need independent research, but right now because of extensive consumer demand. Gene Groves Kihei, HI Retired research sociologist, computer software engineer, investor, and educator. Sited Sources below: David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Proposal for a regulation on GM Food and Feed European Parliament, Brussels, 11 September 200, Speech/01/378 p. 4 on "Costs" http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/speeches/speech 1 14_e n.pdf Alex Phillippidis, Weighing the Costs of GMO Labeling 2012. http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/weighing-the- costs-of-b-g mo-b-b-labeling-b/77899699/ Joanna M. Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Emory University School of Law, Economic-Assessment: Proposed California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (Prop 37) Likely to Cause No Change in Food Prices, Minor Litigation Costs, and Negliglbe Administrative Costs, 49 pages http://www.anh-usa.orq/wp-content/uploads/201 2/08/GE-Food-Act- Costs-Assessment.pdf Food and Drug Adminstration, Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrition Content Claims, and Health Claims, 68 Federal Register 41477(2003)) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/03-17525.htm Chong-Eon Lee,corresponding author Pil-Nam Seong,Woon-Young Oh, Moon-Suck Ko, Kyu-II Kim, and Jae-Hong Jeong Nutritional Characteristics of Horsemeat in Comparison to those of Beef and Pork, Journal of Nutritional Research and Practice, 2007 Spring: 1 (1 ):70-72). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882581 /