Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to Top

To Top

Blog

18

Nov
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Letter: Genetically Engineered Foods a Plus

On 18, Nov 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

wsj_logoAndrew Kimbrell makes many misstatements in his letter “Our GM Food Fears Aren’t Irrational” (Nov. 9): “The vast majority of GE crops are developed to resist and therefore promote pesticides, sharply increasing the amount of pesticides used in agriculture.” In fact, a significant fraction of GE crops have been specifically, and successfully, crafted to supplant the spraying of chemical pesticides. According to an analysis by PG Economics, the cultivation of pest-resistant genetically engineered crops reduced pesticide spraying by 474 million kilograms (9%) between 1996 and 2011.

To read more click here

18

Nov
2013

No Comments

In Blog
Featured

By admin

Lawmakers aren’t buying Anti-GMO Scare Tactics

On 18, Nov 2013 | No Comments | In Blog, Featured | By admin

ConcordMonitorLogoOn Nov. 6, the Massachusetts House Committee on Environment and Agriculture dealt a blow to an effort in Massachusetts to require the labeling of genetically modified foods or foods that contain GMOs.

 

To read more click here

13

Nov
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Nashua Telegraph – House panel votes down labels for GMOs

On 13, Nov 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

Telegraph_Logo9

An impressive grassroots campaign to require labeling food that is genetically engineered came up short before a House committee Thursday.

The measure now goes to the full House of Representatives early on in the 2014 session, with the House Environmental and Agriculture Committee recommending 12-8 that it be killed.

Supporters have been hoping to make Massachusetts a beach head on which to build regional endorsement for this mandate.

Read The Complete Article Here

12

Nov
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

NHPR News Update

On 12, Nov 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

inthenews-nhpr

A House committee voted 12 to 8  to recommended against passing a bill that would require retailers to label foods containing genetically modified crops, or GMOs. The vote means the chances are slim of getting the bill through a divided legislature.

Read the full story here

29

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

One Seacoast Mom’s Perspective

On 29, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

Foster’s Daily Democrat, 9/7/13

 GMO labeling: One Seacoast mom’s practical pro-choice perspective

 Saturday, September 7, 2013

 As a mother of three small children, I am concerned about good nutrition and a healthy diet. I like to buy locally grown produce and organic foods whenever I can, even though this type of shopping is not always the most convenient or economical.

I appreciate the fact that as demand grows, it’s becoming easier to find organic and non-GMO products at my local supermarket. But while I support and purchase some organic and non-GMO products I still bristle at the impracticality of imposing a law that requires all products made with GMOs to be labeled as such. Products that don’t use GMOs already proudly proclaim that fact on their packaging, as do the certified organic products.

Should a GMO labeling law pass, mandating all products from private label rice to brand name breakfast cereals be labeled differently, manufacturers would need to design and print new packages at a cost they would pass along to the consumer in the form of price increases. Some manufacturers might stop selling in our state altogether, limiting our choices and hurting Massachusetts businesses as people head out-of-state to buy the products that were once available at the local Market Basket.

Furthermore, who is going to pay to inspect to make sure all of these products are properly labeled as GMO? I don’t think the state has enough funds in the budget to take on such a huge responsibility without increasing taxes more. And what happens to those that don’t comply? Will they be fined and make the changes? Or will they simply stop selling in our state? What happens when costs go up but our income cannot keep up? What does this mean for our state economically? Does state spending on an unnecessary labeling process take priority over education, social programs or upkeep of our bridges and roads?

To me, it seems far more efficient to focus on the positive and support the current process of labeling our GMO-free and organic products. This method has worked very well for Whole Foods: they have grown like crazy over the last decade. Maybe we can even save some money to help local businesses and encourage growth that will ultimately create more choices for us in the future.

Some of my good friends are very passionate and emotional about this issue, but I wonder if all the factors and implications of such a massive undertaking are being considered when they read a blog post or a Facebook update. The current process seems to be working quite well for both consumers and producers that offer GMO-free products — a process that represents natural, free market evolution.

With our economy still weak, I think any decision that adds cost and increases risks to our economy should be avoided. In this state especially, we are proud to make our own choices and across the board mandates such as a new labeling law seems both very impractical idea and an insult to our collective intelligence.

Sarah Godshall

Durham

28

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Concord Monitor: Labeling Effort is Misleading

On 28, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

monitor

Labeling effort is confusing, misleading

By ROBERT JOHNSON

For the Monitor

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Imagine you are driving home from work. You decide to stop at a local farm stand to pick up your first fresh-picked ears of sweet corn of the summer. You arrive with anticipation, thinking about the fresh corn. But your expression changes as you approach the display stand. The ears look fresh and inviting, but something else grabs your attention. A sign conspicuously placed over the corn reading “Genetically Engineered.”

This scene would become reality at Massachusetts farm stands and farmers’ markets if legislation currently before the Massachusetts House Environment and Agriculture Committee, mandating genetically modified foods be labeled, becomes law. Proponents tout it as “right to know,” pro-transparency legislation. As farmers, we ask how anything so confusing and misleading can be seen as informative and transparent.

We have serious concerns that our customers would take one look at the sign and make any number of false assumptions. One assumption might be the belief that it speaks for all of the produce in the stand. A customer might walk away without truly understanding the intended impact. More information does not necessarily mean more knowledge or provide greater transparency. This might be considered a “right to know,” but in reality it creates confusion about what you think you know.

When customers have questions about biotechnology, we encourage them to speak with us. We encourage this in many ways, including through signage. These discussions are invaluable. We can explain firsthand, and often do so in detail, about how biotechnology works, the effects on our farms and on our quality of life.

Biotechnology can be explained as a continuation and refinement of the plant breeding that has been part and parcel to agriculture since its beginnings. With conventional plant breeding, a whole slew of genes are transferred. Genes are responsible for desired traits as well as unwanted traits. Biotechnology enables the precise transfer of specific genes. In each process, the plant genomes are altered. The difference is the tools that are used. Evolution and adaptation are constantly occurring in nature; biotechnology only speeds up the process. In light of a changing climate, this will only be more important in the future.

We explain the benefits of biotechnology on our farming operations and the environment by the application of fewer chemicals, less fuel consumed and less time in the field. One local young farmer sees quality of life in biotechnology. He laments that his customers are not yet to the point of supporting his growing genetically modified sweet corn varieties. He estimates that if they were, he would have an additional 60 hours each summer to spend with his young family.

The Massachusetts Farm Bureau makes the following broader points about HB 660 and biotechnology in general:

Only the federal government has the expertise and resources to regulate biotechnology. A patchwork of state regulations would be unworkable and result in needless increases in the price of food for all of us.

The bill is not necessary. Voluntary labeling of biotechnology already exists. By 2018, the fastest growing grocery chain in the country, Whole Foods Market, will require all vendors label their products to indicate if they contain genetically modified ingredients. Walmart, the largest food retailer in the country, is reportedly weighing a similar requirement. Industry is already making it happen. Consumers wanting to avoid genetically modified foods can purchase certified organic foods.

Mandatory labeling is misleading as it implies a health or safety issue. In the nearly 20 years since genetically modified foods have been a part of our food supply, not a single verified case of illness has been attributed to biotechnology. The Food and Drug Administration has continually upheld its safety, and last summer the American Medical Association reaffirmed its position that FDA’s “science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling.”

Claims that genes do not cross the species barrier in nature are false. Plant geneticists tell us tell us it happens in nature and is done by conventional breeders all the time.

Farmers must have access to the best technology to manage limited natural resources and increase productivity. Our success depends on public policies that are guided by science and that encourage the development and acceptance of innovative agricultural practices and solutions. As public policy, HB 660 fails this test.

(Robert Johnson is policy director of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation in Concord.)

 

23

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Defeat HB660

On 23, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

Legislative Update and Work Calendar ————-

  • Subcommittee Work Session: 10/29/2013 10:00 AM  LOB 303 ———
  •  Full Committee Executive Session: 11/7/2013
  • 1:00pm or immediately following House session LOB 302 

16

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

The Golden Rice Saga

On 16, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

Secretary Paterson, an ardent supporter of Golden Rice, said, “It’s just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology.” He reiterated that there was no scientific evidence that GMOs posed any threat to human health or the environment.

Read the entire article here

15

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Scientific American: Labels for GMO Foods are a bad idea

On 15, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

In November 2012 California voters rejected the similar Proposition 37 by a narrow majority of 51.4 percent. “All we want is a simple label/For the food that’s on our table,” chanted marchers before the elections. The issue, however, is in no way simple.

We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms’ genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Click here to continue reading

15

Oct
2013

No Comments

In Blog

By admin

Biotechnology can save the endangered American Chestnut

On 15, Oct 2013 | No Comments | In Blog | By admin

The American Chestnut tree used to grow in vast numbers across most of the eastern United States. Today, however, it has all but vanished from its natural region. The Chestnut blight, which is believed to have been brought to America from China at the start of the 20th century, has laid waste to more than four billion of the once mighty trees. Advances in genetic modification, however, could be used to save this important species and restore its numbers.

Read More Here