Today is the 105th anniversary of Norm Borlaug’s birth. Born on a small farm in Iowa, Norm went on to study plant pathology. He lived a life of service, becoming of humanity’s greatest people. He won a Nobel Prize in 1970 for his efforts to improve wheat and rice, reducing the amount of land needed.
Norman Borlaug with spikes of wheat.Photo credit: CIMMYT.
On his 100th birthday, Biology Fortified and CIMMYT collaborated with artist Melody Sheep to produce this tribute to Norm. Enjoy!
Learn about Norm in this video from the World Food Prize.
Read more about Norm in these Biology Fortified posts:
A Parent Washington Navel Orange tree was donated to the historic Mission Inn in Riverside, California by the International Organization of Citrus Virologists (IOCV) on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. IOCV was founded at UC Riverside in 1957 and this gift celebrated the return of more than 200 citrus scientists. The lunchtime ceremony marked another restoration achievement for the Friends of the Mission Inn organization, and the start of the Sixth International Research Conference on Huanglongbing (IRCHLB).
Huanglongbing (HLB, also known as Citrus Greening) is the most devastating disease of citrus. In 2017, HLP reduced Florida citrus production by 70%. Approximately 600 researchers from 23 different countries gathered in Riverside to share research on this devastating disease, their progress toward understanding it, and create solutions for this calamitous pathogen spreading around the world, including California.
The story of the Parent Navel Orange trees
The tree dedication was steeped in historical significance. Riverside was built on the boughs of citrus trees, which in turn helped build California. Early American settlers who moved across the continent to found Riverside on the banks of the Santa Ana river needed a successful agricultural crop. Irrigation from the river allowed oranges to thrive early in Riverside’s history. In 1873, Eliza and Luther Tibbets imported two seedless navel orange trees from the US Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC. They became known as “Parent Navel Orange” or Washington Navel orange, one of which still stands today.
President Theodore Roosevelt participates in the Parent Navel Orange tree planting ceremony at the Mission Inn in 1903.
From the two parent navel orange trees brought to Riverside, an industry was born. Called the “second gold rush”, 20,000 acres of citrus trees gave Riverside the highest per-capita income in the entire country in just 20 years. Together with Valencia oranges that grew well in the aptly-named Orange County, the Washington Navel Orange reached a wide market when refrigerated railroad cars arrived in 1904.
In 1902, one of the two Parent Navel Oranges was transplanted to a small park in downtown Riverside. It endured bouts of gummosis that girdled the tree, but was ultimately saved by UC Riverside plant pathologists. The second parent navel was transplanted to the Mission Inn in 1903 with the participation of President Theodore Roosevelt, but declined and died in 1922. It was replaced by an 11-year-old descendant, planted in 1915.
It is important to highlight that at the time of the Parent Navel introduction Riverside had a large Asian-American community. Citrus was cultivated in Asian countries such as China for centuries prior to its arrival in the Americas, so the knowledge and know-how of the Asian immigrant population was critical for the success of the California citrus industry. Another critical factor for the success of citrus in Riverside was the help by the native population, the Cahuilla people. Their intimate knowledge of the land, weather patterns, and water resources was instrumental for the early establishment of the citrus groves. Cahuilla Bird Singers were present at the opening ceremony of the 6th IRCHLB and welcomed the conference delegates from around the world.
The Professor George Dentmyer Descendant Parent Navel orange tree, credit: Karl HvM
Citrus lines depend on their parents
In citrus, like many other tree crops, successful varieties are propagated by cuttings (budwood or buds) that are clones of the original tree. But unlike other tree crops like apples or walnuts, many citrus varieties are difficult to breed new varieties. Familiar citrus fruits like sweet oranges, persian limes, and grapefruits are unique hybrids of several ancestral species.
Many popular new varieties are “bud sports”, or branches of a tree that spontaneously mutated and carry new traits. The seedless navel orange was a mutant that was discovered on Selecta sweet oranges in Bahia, Brazil. The recently popular pink-fleshed cara cara orange was a mutant discovered on a navel orange tree.
Befriending the Friends of the Mission Inn
After the ceremony in the Mission Inn, I met with members of the Friends of the Mission Inn organization over tortellini salad and citrus salmon with generous amounts of iced tea. They spoke of their their work preserving and restoring historical objects at the Mission Inn. Now approaching its 50th anniversary as a volunteer-driven organization, they recounted the myriad achievements over the years, the tree dedication being their most recent.
Friends of the Mission Inn, credit: Karl HvM
With over $800,000 spent on repairs and restorations, they emphasized that they only worked on historical structures, artifacts, and it seems musical instruments that the public could also enjoy. Carol Krieger said, “anything we refurbish, we want to be shown.” Aside the stage in the room the event was held in – the Grand Parisian Ballroom – was a beautiful and functional pipe organ that the Friends restored.
Beth Ballantyne, a long-time member of the organization, and whose husband helped repair the organ, further described archways with doors high enough for people to enter astride horses, wax and smoke removed from inside the St. Francis of Assisi Chapel, and a clock that they were still working on. On May 2, the pipe organ will play at their annual silent film fundraiser – that ought to be fun!
Saving historic citrus by hand
We turned to the tree again. What happened to the replacement tree at the Inn? It, too, died after many hard years. The late UC Riverside plant pathologist George A. Zentmyer, worked hard to care for the tree during the most difficult years from 1980-1992. Sharla Wright, the president of the organization, said that what meant most about bringing the new Descendent Parent Navel Orange to the Mission Inn was honoring the work of Dr. Zentmyer. Before this day, I heard that Dr. Zentmyer carried buckets of water all the way to the tree himself to keep it alive. As someone who empathizes with my own plants, I can appreciate that.
The new tree adorning the stage beside the pipe organ was grown from a cutting from the downtown Parent Navel Orange by Dr. Georgios Vidalakis, Director of the Citrus Clonal Protection Program. He spoke at the dedication of the tree, and chairs the IRCHLB meeting about to begin later the same day. The tree would have been planted much sooner if it were not for the discovery of Huanglongbing in a Riverside neighborhood – which put the entire area under quarantine. To keep from spreading the disease, it became difficult to move citrus trees in Riverside.
Dr. Georgios Vidalakis speaks at the dedication of the Descendant Navel Orange tree. Credit: Karl HvM
Looking forward to learning
The ladies who lunched with me were curious about the research on Huanglongbing, and having worked with citrus for only nine months myself, I was looking forward to learning about the latest progress at the meeting that was about to begin. Citrus Greening, for all the harm it is causing, brought these two events together here in Riverside at the same time.
The biannual IRCHLB conference brings researchers from around the world, and the sixth conference, is the biggest one ever. I’m excited for what I’ll learn, and also to convey the proceedings to the public. What’s in store, and how can you follow along?
Hundreds of scientists have registered to hear presentations, hold research meetings, present posters, and share their ideas related to a single plant disease and its insect vector. I’ve been to some big scientific conferences, but they usually covered a diverse array of organisms, discoveries, and applications. Even Maize Genetics, a conference I frequented in grad school, had only about 300-400 attendees, but they were each studying different systems. This is almost 600 attendees talking about, for the most part, one plant disease!
The conference will begin with updates on Huanglongbing from around the world, and move on to research on the putative pathogen, a bacterium associated with the disease, Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas), and cultural controls to try to limit its spread. Sessions on the Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP), the insect vector that spreads the disease will come with research on understanding how CLas interacts with ACP and the citrus hosts themselves. There are efforts to control the pathogen and its vector, and finally, work on developing resistance to HLB in citrus varieties will all be discussed. (See our coverage of other plant disease solutions through biotechnology such as the American chestnut and Hawaiian papaya.)
All this, over three days: March 13, 14, and 15. It will be a marathon! Not to mention, the International Organization of Citrus Virologists (IOCV) held its annual meeting starting on March 10th.
Speaking of history, there’s still that Parent Washington Navel tree in downtown Riverside. On Friday, the City of Riverside will build a screen house to protect it so it may continue to thrive even as Huanglongbing threatens its descendants throughout the state. I look forward to witnessing this and telling the next chapter of the story of this oft-overlooked and death-defying tree. The hardest part will be figuring out when I can pull myself away from the conference!
Thank you to Dr. Georgios Vidalakis for providing background information, and reviewing and editing this article.
Greenie the Orange and Frank N. Foode. Credit: Karl HvM
More than eight years ago, we wrote about a project at Texas A&M University led by Dr. Keerti Rathore to create edible cottonseed. If determined to be safe for food and the environment, this has the potential to make large amounts of protein and calories available that would normally be locked up in the seed. This trait is undergoing deregulation with USDA-APHIS right now, and we encourage our readers to submit comments before the deadline at the end of the day today.
Background
Cotton plants produce a potent defense compound called gossypol, which is toxic to many animals, including humans. Gossypol is produced by special glands throughout the plant, from leaves to seeds, and protects the plants from insect pests and diseases. Some varieties of cotton are glandless and do not produce toxic levels of gossypol, making the seeds and leaves edible. However, because these glandless cotton varieties have lost the protective benefits in their leaves, they are more susceptible to insect damage and are not commonly grown.
Gossypol. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Using RNAi, Dr. Rathore’s team at TAMU created a variety they call TAM66274 that “silences” the production of gossypol just in the seeds, producing a plant that defends itself against pests in the leaves, but produces seeds that have ultra-low levels of gossypol in the seeds, making them safe to eat. If applied on a large scale, it could allow humans and many other animals access to the protein contained in cottonseed. According to the data they collected for their application, the composition of the cottonseed was otherwise unchanged, the plants performed the same in the field, and there were very minor changes in the length of the fibers, which they suggest will not be an issue when the trait is bred into “elite” cotton varieties.
The impacts of this trait could be far-reaching. Some estimates suggest that the amount of protein produced in cottonseed worldwide could satisfy the needs of 500 million people. Ruminant animals are able to tolerate some gossypol in their diets, so this trait could create greater flexibility in the animal feed supply. This would turn cottonseed into a valuable co-product of cotton production that could benefit cotton farmers at every scale, producing more food without using more land. Read more about how this trait works and its potential impacts on agriculture in Cotton like Candy.
What APHIS wants to hear from you
Open comment periods for federal regulations are often misunderstood. Some organizations use them to gather signatures (and email addresses) of supporters for their political causes, or set up form letters to mass-send the same talking points over and over to regulators. These actually do nothing more than single letters from one person that say the same thing – because the regulators are looking for public input to identify issues that they should look into during the process – not to count the number of people who think one action or another is a good idea. Back when the FDA was looking for input on biotechnology outreach, there were many opponents and supporters of biotechnology saying “don’t do it” and “do it”, when that was not even a question. It was mandated by Congress, so the question was how should it be done?
Cotton field, by Kimberlykv
Similarly, when the USDA-APHIS is reviewing a genetically engineered crop, they are not going to count how many people say “yes” or “no” to the question of whether to de-regulate (approve) a crop, they want to know what issues related to the economic and environmental impacts they should be aware of when they do the review. Will the crop become a pest on farms? Will it help control pests? Will it benefit the bottom lines of farmers, or reduce the ability of other farmers to farm the way they want to? This is your chance as members of the public, as knowledgeable scientists and science enthusiasts, and as people who think deeply about far-reaching impacts of biotechnological applications, to inform the USDA about data, ideas, and concerns that you have that they can look into when evaluating the crop. Here it is in their words:
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Texas A&M AgriLife Research seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton designated as event TAM66274, which has been genetically engineered for ultra-low gossypol levels in the cottonseed. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the Texas A&M AgriLife Research petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will be following this trait as it moves along, while thinking about how we can improve our own alerts to help mobilize scientists, farmers, and the rest of you to prepare impactful submissions that can help strengthen the regulatory process.
The Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comments on a new education and outreach initiative about biotechnology, mandated by Congress. Comments close on Friday, November 17th, and Biology Fortified strongly encourages scientists and members of the public to submit comments to help shape and inform this initiative. A public meeting was held this week in Charlotte, NC, and a second meeting will be held on Tuesday November 14th in San Francisco from 8 am to 1 pm, where members of the public can sign up to submit oral comments as well.
Education and outreach are extremely important to address the wide gap between the scientific literature and public perceptions about biotechnology, and these outreach efforts must themselves be informed by what we know about science communication. Biology Fortified will be submitting our own comments to the federal register, but if you take a look at the comments that have already been submitted online, you can see that there are very few informed comments at all, some of which make accusations of the FDA and swearing insults and implied threats against them. These comments, however, will do little to sway the FDA, but what will have an impact are informed, on-point comments that can help them navigate this issue.
Your comments can and do make a difference. Recently, the USDA scrapped new proposed rules regulating biotechnology that did not make much sense, and this was in part due to the detailed comments that they received. What does the FDA want to hear about?
We invite the public to share information, experiences, and suggestions that can help inform the development of the education and outreach initiative. We invite interested persons, including those participating in the public meetings, to respond to the following questions specifically regarding agricultural biotechnology and biotechnology-derived food products and animal feed:
1. What are the specific topics, questions, or other information that consumers would find most useful, and why?
2. Currently, how and from where do consumers most often receive information on this subject?
3. How can FDA (in coordination with USDA) best reach consumers with science-based educational information on this subject?
The comments received will help FDA identify education goals, messaging, and dissemination strategies for FDA’s Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative.
The official Pin of the March for Science. Buy one here!
Tomorrow, thousands of people across the United States and even the world will March for Science. As both a celebration of knowledge and discovery and as a protest against political interference and rejection of scientific facts, the March for Science has gathered tremendous energy and enthusiasm, with over 600 cities hosting satellite marches. Biology Fortified is one of many partners of the march, and we encourage our readers and followers – if you haven’t already – to make plans to be a part of this historic march either in-person or online!
I’m going to inform you about local events where we are participating, and finally, explain what I think is important for us to march about, which I hope you will be compelled to agree with. Finally, if you want to help us out we have flyers that can be printed and distributed.
At some of our events, where permitted, we will be passing out flyers. If you want to print and bring some of these to tell people about the work that Biology Fortified does, and our upcoming March Against Myths on May 20, feel free to print them out! BFI Flyer (4 per page, color) BFI/MAMyths flyer (4 per page, color, print front/back for two sided flyers) BFI/MAMyths flyer (4 per page, B/W, print front/back for two sided flyers)
After the March
Biology Fortified will be hosting two webinars after the march, focused on getting started in science communication, and a primer on genetically engineered plants. As part of the “Science Communicates” and “Science Creates” days of action of the March for Science, these open webinars will also be available to re-view after the broadcast times. Check back on these pages for the link to the broadcast events! Wednesday 4/26 12:30 pm Pacific (3:30 pm Eastern):Start Talking about Science Today, with Kevin Folta and Karl Haro von Mogel Thursday 4/27 12:00 pm Pacific (3:00 Eastern):Plants with Superpowers, with Karl Haro von Mogel
Watch and listen with an open mind, and come with your questions!
Why I March for Science
I have long been an advocate for science, since my early days in college at UC Davis, when I convinced the school paper, The California Aggie, to let me write a science column – something they never did before. I was spurred into action because of my desire to write and communicate science, and because of unscientific nonsense communicated by a political columnist about global warming. Since then I have spent thousands of volunteer hours writing, hosting a radio show, creating videos, attending conferences, giving talks, conducting interviews, generating public resources, and two years ago I co-founded a movement to take science to the streets to fight myths about biotechnology and more.
One of the main problems I see with the intersection of politics and science is that people from different political parties and walks of life tend to selectively accept and support areas of science that they already agree with, or that have implications that are in line with their personal philosophies. They then reject and sometimes even deny the science when it runs contrary to those values. Conservatives tend to reject climate change, the use of embryonic stem cells, and the theory of evolution. Liberals tend to reject vaccine safety, the safety and use of genetic engineering in agriculture, and medical science – preferring “alternative medicine” instead.
I reject all of these rejections. I live in a real Universe, with observable and testable natural laws, and we have invented a wonderful method called The Scientific Method, that compels us to accept conclusions that are built up from accumulated evidence, experimentation, and logic. To accept science in one field but reject it when convenient in another means that you reject part of reality, and that can be dangerous. The key is recognizing that our shared reality is the same no matter who we are, but it is our values that differ and we should not confuse these values with science.
The March for Science started as a push-back to the actions of a member of one political party, but they have made great efforts to promote a plurality of science and this is something that I can get behind. Join me – join us – near or far, in marching for science – all of it!
Debbie Stabenow discusses the different labeling options under S. 764 while introducing the bill
On Thursday, July 7th, the US Senate passed a bill that would set a national labeling standard for foods containing genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients. Introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) the previous day, S. 764 is a compromise bill that resulted from negotiations between Stabenow and Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KY), which had already drawn heated debate between partisans of this issue. At the end of the first day, the Senate voted 65-32 for cloture on the GMO labeling bill, thereby limiting debate and discussion of amendments. On Thursday, the bill passed with 63 votes in favor, and 30 votes against. If a similar bill is passed in the House of Representatives, this standard could become law in the United States.
Since the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the question of labeling them in stores has been a contentious political issue, but one that did not often rise to national consciousness. Several waves of ballot measures had been attempted by proponents of labeling such as California Proposition 37 – but every one of them rejected by voters. Some of the smaller, northeastern states of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine passed mandatory labeling laws through their legislatures, as part of a multi-state approach taken by advocates (map). All but one of these states had a conditional clause stating that a certain number of nearby states with large populations must also have GMO labeling laws for theirs to take effect. Vermont is the only state that has a labeling law without such provisions, and it went into effect on July 1 this year. Some companies have already added labels to their packages. (Read our story about some of the initial effects of this law on food availability in Vermont here.)
Some lawmakers, looking to avoid some of the costly and problematic effects of a single state mandating special labels on foods sold within the state or a potential state-by-state patchwork sought to propose laws that would pre-empt state labeling mandates and replace them with a single federal standard. One such bill, proposed by Senator Roberts, would have put the USDA in charge of creating a voluntary labeling standard, (which is discussed in detail here) but failed to pass. Other senators, such as Jeff Merkley (D-OR) proposed a mandatory GMO labeling scheme that was more stringent, which also failed to gain support. Senators Stabenow and Roberts together negotiated a compromise bill that became the one introduced Wednesday, and passed Thursday.
The bill institutes a national mandatory labeling standard for foods that contain genetically engineered crops, with several options for how food manufacturers can label their products. They can use plain language on the package, a website url, phone number, or QR code that leads to disclosure about GMO content, or a symbol that would be created by the USDA after a 2-year process. The bill also grants authority to the USDA to determine the accessibility of the QR code based approach as well as some of the bills exemptions. “Very small” companies do not have to disclose this information, and ingredients that do not contain genetic material from the crops they were derived from are also exempt. Even with these exemptions, compared to the Vermont law it replaces this results in thousands of additional products that would be covered. Bernie Sanders opposed S. 764 and advocated for making the Vermont law the national standard
Upon introduction into the Senate, Senator Stabenow emphasized that there was no scientific controversy over the safety of growing and eating genetically modified foods. The Vermont label law H.112 actually contains language stating that “There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods” as justification for enacting the law. While Stabenow was still giving her presentation introducing the new bill, A small group of senators including Bernie Sanders (I-VT) held a concurrent press conference voicing their opposition to the bill and re-emphasizing issues such as safety and their concerns about corporate power. The debate continued through the following day, and viewers reported that Senator Sanders chastised the Senate for not inviting “all voices” to testify in the Senate about GMO safety, and that Senator Stabenow dismissed popular conspiracy theories about GMOs, citing the recent National Academy of Sciences report on the subject.
In the final vote tally, among the 63 yea votes were 41 Republicans and 22 Democrats, indicating strong bipartisan support. Since this bill differs too much from HR 1599, the Safe And Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 which spelled out a voluntary GMO labeling program, there will need to be a new bill passed in the House of Representatives before this bill can be brought before the President to become law. In the meantime, the contentious debate about whether and what kind of labeling there may be for genetically engineered foods in the United States is sure to continue. The final vote tally for S. 764
Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1993), opened the press conference asking Greenpeace to reverse its stance on genetically engineered crops. Credit: Jenny Splitter More than 100 Nobel Laureates are calling on Greenpeace to reconsider its opposition to GMOs. Yesterday, representatives of the group of Nobel Laureates, Sir Richard Roberts, Professor Martin Chalfie and Professor Randy Schekman held a press conference at the National Press Club to explain why 110 Nobel Laureates came together now to support transgenic crops and ask Greenpeace to reverse its long-held stance against GMOs. Continue reading “110 Nobel Laureates to Greenpeace: Change Your Stance on GMOs”→
Labeling of genetically modified organisms in food has been debated for decades now. Whether the labels should be mandatory, voluntary, or third-party based like Kosher has been widely disputed. For a long time we’ve all discussed what would happen if/when GMO labels hit the stores. Some groups claimed that there was no cost at all to just label food. Other groups predicted serious impacts on the budgets of consumers. Due to the looming Vermont legislation which will take effect on July 1st, we are beginning to see the reactions by food producers and distributors. We don’t have any data yet on how consumers respond, but we can examine what the companies are doing at this point.
Every tidbit so far has been an example of “told you so”. Some companies are embracing their GMO supply chain and doing the charm offensive. Some are swapping out ingredients. Some are raising prices. Some are eating their price differences (which, of course, will hurt small business the most). Some may simply opt-out of selling in the Vermont market.
Things may shift was we get closer to the deadline, or change completely if the court battles resolve. But here’s what we know about the current state of play. Here are six real consequences of GMO labeling:
1. Labeling is “expensive”.
Campbell’s was the first company to go public with their plans, in this piece from the NYT. They will now label all their products across the US, because labeling for 1 state was not workable for them–and would be “incredibly costly”. The Chief Executive of Campbell said about their own program, “Ms. Morrison said that complying with Vermont’s law was expensive….” No, it’s not just some text on the can. It’s reviewing the supply chain, checking all the recipes, evaluating the logistics, exploring sourcing options, etc. Anyone who tells you it’s just a bit of text has no grasp of this, nor of the $1000/day penalty for getting it wrong. Small producers are acutely aware of how much the changes will cost them (in the example here that’s $10,000). Their budgets are far less flexible than those of Big Food, and it will be hard to know if some of them just choose to stop selling into that market.
A small producer explains how the Vermont GMO label will cost them $10,000.
2. Labeling is confusing.
In the same NYT piece, we find that plain SpaghettiOs must carry a GMO label. But meatball SpaghettiOs do not need to. Since they are regulated by different agencies, meat-containing products are exempt. How this adequately informs consumers has yet to be adequately explained to me. I’m sure someone will try in the comments. We also know that the state of Vermont can’t handle the incoming questions at this time, and according to a Wall Street Journal piece: “The office of Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, which is responsible for enforcing the state law, has been deluged with questions. Its website now warns that the office won’t reply to email inquiries about GMO labeling and asks companies to stop calling.” That’s informative.
3. Companies will swap out ingredients.
The same WSJ piece above included reports of a small pasta business that had to make changes to their recipes to avoid the labeling hassles and possible penalties. They had been using canola oil–which may be herbicide tolerant GMO, or herbicide tolerant non-GMO. Surely even if they were using the non-GMO version but people saw it on a label, the tractor-chasing legal teams would light up with glee. In any case, they have now switched to olive oil. This raised their costs by 10%, without a similar increase in sales. Other small companies are retiring some products (how’s that for choice?). Maybe Big Food can eat those kinds of costs, but this hurts a small business.
And that said, if you actually think Big Food doesn’t pass the costs along in some way, I’d like to sell you this charming Vermont GMO-free covered bridge….
Morgan Bridge, by Steven Bergeron.
4. Swapping out ingredients raises prices.
We know this from Ben & Jerry, in fact. Interestingly, in early comments on this, B&J said: “Ben & Jerry’s has no plans to raise prices as a result of the transition….” Later we learn, also from the WSJ article: “It took about three years just to remove GMOs from ingredients like cookie dough and caramel, and the new products averaged 11% higher in price.” About that bridge, my prices just went up.
5. Changing recipes alters products – in unpleasant ways.
I have to say, though, the most surprising thing to me was adding new allergen labels as a result of their switch. One company switching away from cottonseed oil has opted for peanut oil: “that switch introduced a new allergen the company had to warn consumers about.” Swell. If you have an allergy as I do, you’ll have to be aware of ingredient changes to products you’ve bought all along. Let’s hope that parents of kids with allergies don’t miss these changes because their kids could get hurt.
6. Some companies will opt out of shipping to Vermont.
An article by the Associated Press covered another aspect of the challenges: shipping. One company was facing serious logistical issues, which are also costly.
Herr Foods Inc., a midsize snack food company based in Philadelphia, is considering pulling its products from Vermont if the law takes effect, said Daryl Thomas, senior vice president for sales and marketing. “Just the logistics, the expense are horrendous,” he said.
And this doesn’t include the costs of getting it wrong, with the very steep penalty and ensuing the legal nightmares. Yeah, labelers want choices. The choice to remove other people’s favorites. In addition, small shop owners are losing sleep over the downstream consequences of opting-out:
“As a retailer, there’s all sorts of ways that this could backfire on us as a state, and a small independent guy like myself if I’ve got nothing on my shelves or I’ve got limited (supply) and my competitors have no problem with the staying power, we’re done,” said Ray Bouffard, owner of Georgia Market in Georgia, Vermont.
Again, we see that small business stands to be harmed by the whole scenario. And Big Food and Big Chain probably continue to swim in the shark-infested waters. Is that what labelers wanted? Really? A win for the Bigs? Well done.
These are the known issues. Other unknowns at this point include the impacts on sales, legal penalties, enforcement costs, and other financial effects. Another possibility is harassment of companies. “Some of the feedback that these companies are getting is boycotts from groups against the use of GMOs…”. We’ll have to assess this on the real roll-out, but I’ve known this was the goal all along. If you think that labels are going to stop the shouting, see me about that bridge again.
Editor’s Note: The following post was part of our 2015 April Fools prank on our readers. A lot of people had fun reading and joking about it. If you were worried about so many researchers being harassed you can now relax, but if you were a graduate student looking forward to a free weekly buffet – we’re sorry to disappoint you! Although this was a prank, FoIA requests are currently being abused to harass scientists with the goal of undermining science communicators. You can find out more about this issue here and we encourage you to sign this letter of support! By William Harvey, M.D. (Born April 1st, 1578)
Previously, it was reported that 14 Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests had been filed seeking the correspondence of academic scientists and professors who were actively involved in outreach and public education about genetically engineered crops. The Biofortified Blog has recently learned that a second and much more extensive wave of FoIA requests has been filed – potentially affecting thousands of academic scientists and graduate students.
The second wave of FoIA requests, now being dubbed a “Climategate 3.0“, or “Biogate 2.0” or “GMOGate 1.0 beta” by various sources, seeks information about the totality of published academic research on genetically engineered (GMO) crops. The requests are exhaustive, covering all of the background research, grant proposals, experimental design and data, and results and conclusions of nearly 2,000 studies that have been conducted on GMOs. The total number of FoIAs filed is still being determined, but sources have confirmed that they were filed by the US Right Two Know (USR2K) organization, a nonprofit funded by the cattle manure-based fertilizer industry. Continue reading “April Fools: FoIA requests expand to all published academic GMO research”→
Biofortified 