Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0177.002 2012-2014 Page 1 of 6 PI&MU . Murashige, Laura RE-3 L3 Com,vt. 177 From: Unmani Cynthia Groves [unmanib @maui.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:45 PM . " ` To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: maceyj001 @hawaii.rr.com Subject: GMO LABELING RESOLUTION mtg 3-28-13 in Kona by the County Council Attachments: PesticidesSeedReportHVl2.doc- PesticidesKauaiHVl2.pdf.html; ATT00025.htm Hawaii County Council Meeting 3-28/13 in Kona, HI RE: GMO Labeling Resolution Aloha Hawaii County Council Chairman, I am a health care practice management consultant and investigated the issues with GMO foods since 2006, I was urged by Margaret Wille to testify. Please print this testimony at her request--even if submitted late due to specific request. I want to honor her. I urge you to go further than a Resolution in an ordinance to require labeling of GMO fruits and vegetables grown and sold in your county which would support the consumer right to know, encouraging choice in buying locally. I encourage other counties to do so along with you, since this HB174 has been deferred at a state level and the will of the people is not being heard. The federal government website states that fruits and vegetable labeling is only voluntary by them. 71 studies have been submitted to the state on HB 174 BY James Macey Safe Food Foundation and over 200+ by Nomi Carmona on HB 174 which plenty of studies and evidence of why we should be labeling GMO foods. I am enclosing a list I put together in 2006, plus others. A 2009 memo from President Obama opposed preemption in all federal rule-making. The memo correctly notes: "Throughout our history, state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national government. Amen to that. I am not opposed to federal labeling on GMO food. I agree this is where the problem must ultimately be solved. However, any federal standard must set a floor and not a ceiling, and not hand preemption over to industry. The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further. Further, I urge you to consider a county ordinance to require notification requirements on pesticide spraying, including on non-organic foods. The pesticides being sprayed on the food is highly toxic and should be investigated, even "general use" pesticides. The state simply defers to federal requirements which are grossly insufficient. HRS Pesticide Law HRS 149A and AR-66 and Pesticide Rules and 1 �. Comm. Ref.To:: No.rtcest to Ref. Date MAR 2 R 21)13 3/27/2013 Page 2 of 6 Regulations are lacking in revision, and this is a summary of state by state requirements of notification to residents and buffer zones in http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/Regulations.php . I'm unaware of Big Island's situation, but clearly Kauai shows evidence of harm in our state. HB673 is being heard also on 3-28-13 so, I will be present regarding that meeting to testify. Using SignOn.org, online petition, suggest you request your constituents to indicate their response to this as a way of gearing the direction of Hawaii County to requiring GMO labeling in Hawaii County. Suggest a petition circulate in Hawaii County to vote on the measure and get this up as an initiative. Click here to start your own petition on SignOn.org right now. Within a couple of weeks, the banning of GMO test sites petition has surpassed the 10,000 mark and is still moving. People are not happy with the laxness of regulation in Hawaii to protect its citizens from the harms and risks related to these foods and test crops. People are getting hurt. This is my testimony to the state with studies below on HB174 Labeling of GE Foods and Products on 03-21-13 9:00AM in conference room 229. The committee(s) on AGL/CPN/HTH hearing Aloha Senator Green, Senator Nishihara and Senator Bakere, I appreciate the efforts to craft a bill to address the labeling of GE imports which I support; however, I urge you to go with the will of the people as heard by all the county councils of our islands, which is in support of : A. Labeling ALL genetically engineered foods and products with a "genetically engineered label, not just imports" B. Labels are necessary so consumers know the difference between non-gmo and gmo fruits and vegetables particularly. C. We also recommend that Section 9 be amended to take effect 1 July 2014. D. WHY MOVE ON A GMO LABELING REQUIREMENT AT THE STATE and LOCAL LEVEL? 1. FDA Regulation can not keep up with the amount of chemicals and genetically engineered additives, fruits and vegetables coming down the pipeline, and regulatory agencies. Many chemical ingredients are allowed in products as GRAS, generally considered safe--unless it is discovered post market there is a problem. Quite frankly, this has been true with GE crops and ingredients despite claims by industry otherwise. From Monsanto's website: "There has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops." I did 6 months of research and came to the 3/27/2013 Page 3 of 6 Senate AG in 2006 after I found studies and reports that countered that and submitted them then. That's reason alone for me, Label GE. I enclosed them in separate document. 2. Counterfeit food fraud. 40% of our food has been revealed as this, and has precipitated the FDA legislation to craft greater traceability from farm to table and related to our pharmaceuticals that's a start. That should help with cleaner GMO imports hopefully. 3. Genetic Engineering is still a young science. It has potential benefits when proceeding with a more evolved safety protocol and community relations that create earned trust. GE also has shown according to studies aggressive policies that push product to market with claims of safety without acknowledgment of unintended consequences. rbGH in milk may be an example. The precautionary principle should apply. 4. The FDA and Industry state their safety studies are "Recognized as Safe" However, this is based not on independent studies but on studies from industry self- regulation." From literature, I understand Safety protocol proved more rudimentary when many of the GMOs were approved in 1996. 5. 3 month rat studies. I discovered that the FDA only required these for genetic engineering crop and food approval, which was primarily in 1996. Other articles report that anomalies don't really show up from 4 months to about 2 years of age, particularly with autism. This is a concern. AMA states GMOs Needs mandatory studies. The AMA Executive Summary Conclusion states "To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement." Labeling of Bioengineered Foods (Resolutions 508 and 509-A-11) http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12- csaph2-b ioengineeredfoods.pdf 6. Many unlabeled GMO additives are just considered GRAS Generally Recognized as safe until there is an incident! Also a concern. 7. RE: Human studies: Neither industry nor the FDA require human studies on GMOs. 8. Viral Gene VI. Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops. http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden- viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/ Three weeks ago I called and had a 1.5 hr. phone conversation with an FDA scientist 3/27/2013 Page 4 of 6 which began with "how can I submit studies to you" since I saw no studies on the Biotech Registry since 1996 that showed any controversy. I spoke to him about an article that came out 1/21/13 entitled "Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops. I was particularly concerned about this gene, Gene VI, which is a gene that basically attacks the host. The biotech company had received approval for the crop right after they received approval years ago and didn't bother to report it or use it in its assessments. Recently it was brought to their attention that Gene VI was discovered to be widespread in GE crops. This apparently has serious implications for harm to both food and crops and poses problems not only for the public, but regulators. Concerns re: integrity related to this. With this kind of protocol, these are not risks that I believe should be taken by myself or the public without MANDATORY TRUTH IN LABELING of genetically engineered, ingredients. 9. I saw one biotech protocol set up to do a human study which to address the interactve nature of unique gene expression, the assimilation of novel proteins, and impacts of metabolites at different stages of human development. One of their studies I saw was designed to test that, but it was never tested. Consumers would probably feel more trusting of GMO safety if there were human studies. 10. Concerns to label: Particularly at impact are babies., children, and immune compromised persons who cannot speak for themselves. While I have the choice to eat organic, that's not true for babies and children who have growing brains and babies. This is the fist human stud to show GMO crossing through blood to fetus, and that GMOs are not limited to the digestive system. A. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada Journal of Toxocology, Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnantwomen (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAbl toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental. GMOS and pesticide crossed through the fetal cord.http://somloquesembrem.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/arisleblanc2011.pdf 3/27/2013 Page 5 of 6 B. GE baby formulas like Simalac has up 45% GE corn syrup and the introduction of further GE brings it up to 50% sugar--ingredients shows a disregard for the health of our species very early when immune systems are not well formed. Those are products that are recipe for diabetes in life and have not been recalled for the right reason-- recalled for beetles in the milk, not for the amount of sugar. http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm226885.htm However they were! My sadness is for the babies and children who have been exposed to genetic engineering foods in combinations that create unhealthy cumulative effects because of the way in which they are being formulated and marketed. 11. Asparatame, a GE sweetener is extremely controversial with multiple harms yet considered safe by the FDA and known to be addictive. This has been on and off the market. Recently it is being re-considered for open comment for FDA approval in flavoring milk. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013- 03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17- additional-dairy-products http://www.infowars.com/u-s-dairy-industry-petitions-fda-to- approve-aspartame-as-hidden-unlabeled-additive-in-milk-yogurt-eggnog-and-cream/ 12. rbGH in milk. I look at how genetic engineering bt or rbGH in milk for example interacts in the body—not just in the gut as an isolated organ. . Given these are toxins and antibiotics respectively and have the ability to create resistances and toxic burden interacting randomly in the body, 13. I don't assume because industry says it's safe that it fits the consumer's definition of safety. Industry studies consider safety a matter or risk/ benefit. Therefore, label it. 14. The definition of recognized as safe based on nutritional equivalency is pretty weak when you consider the cumulative effects of adding a number of GE ingredients together in loads that are considered toxic burden. 15. So why label just genetically engineered imports with this kind of proliferation of GMO substances out of control even at the FDA regulatory level? From a matter of consumer protection and health, whether the food is in state or imported, the issue is firstly whether labeling of genetically engineered foods and products meets reasonable informative truth in labeling requirements for health, safety, nutritional content, quality, and quantity. 16. RE: Imports. From an Ag standpoint, I imagine what matters is protecting the economic local industry. It's unlikely that companies will stop importing food here. Many industries change their labels and ingredients fairly frequently to accommodate and weigh what they send based on consumer demand in a free market. 3/27/2013 Page 6 of 6 17. Industry's argument that nutritional equivalency as conventional food as a means to say that GMOs are safe is flawed. What can we trust?I went to Monsanto's Q & A on their website which states: "Why aren't you running human clinical trials on GM crops? Answer: Because existing food crops are recognized as safe, the logical starting point for safety assessment of a GM food is to ask "what's different?" Aspects of the GM crop which are the same as the non-GM counterpart do not require safety assessment. Nutritional equivalency has nothing to do with safety. It simply means it provides similar nutrients . Other factors determine safety; 18. Trusting the gut brain. We have to be able to trust that what we are consuming is safe.. If not, this is a good reason to label. When in doubt, we have to go beyond just taste, smell, and texture and trust our instinctual gut brain. Quite frankly most people's guts in the US don't appear to be in great shape given 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. 19. I reserve the alienable right to know what I put in my body and want to maintain control over my own genetic makeup and lineage. STUDIES 1. Environmental and Health Risks of Synthetic Chemicals used by theBiotechnology Seed Industry in Hawaii by Hector Venzuela, Univ of Hawaii at Manoa Dept. of Plan Environmental and Protection Sciences contact: hector(a�hawaii.edu http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33544971/PesticidesKauaiHV12.pdfI 2.pol* 3/27/2013