A great read!
Go to https://medium.com/@BioChicaGMO/were-scientists-we-re-moms-and-we-avoid-non-gmo-products-33bc0aa351a3#.8pqj9ydvj to check out this story.
Showing posts with label GMOs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMOs. Show all posts
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Monday, November 7, 2016
USDA OKs 2 Types of Genetically Engineered Potatoes
 |
| Potatoes growing in a field |
Go to http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/34942740-75/u.s.-department-of-agriculture-approves-two-types-of-genetically-engineered-potatoes.csp to check it out.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Friday, March 25, 2016
Peterson Brother Blogs about Misinformation on GMOs
Everyone should read this blog entry about GMOs.
Go to https://petersonfarmblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/greg-peterson-advocate-for-truth-gmos/ to check it out.
Go to https://petersonfarmblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/greg-peterson-advocate-for-truth-gmos/ to check it out.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
New York Farm Bureau Lists National Priorities for 2016
From New York Farm Bureau:
New York Farm Bureau leaders met with members of New York’s
congressional delegation this week in Washington, DC to discuss the
organization’s member-approved national public policy priorities for 2016.
Following the visits, New York Farm Bureau President Dean Norton and Elizabeth Wolters, NYFB’s associate director of national affairs, held a press conference call with reporters this morning to publicly unveil the priorities.
The priorities are:
GMO LABELING
New York’s visit was timely with next week’s expected markup of Sen. Pat Robert’s bill that would establish national standards for the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMO labeling is an important issue in New York state as a proposed bill looks to create a statewide label for ingredients created with the assistance of biotechnology. This disregards the clear scientific evidence that shows the food is just as safe and nutritious as ingredients bred using more traditional methods.
New York Farm Bureau opposes a statewide approach because it would create a patchwork of labeling laws that would prove costly for New York farmers and consumers alike. Because of the concern, New York Farm Bureau is supportive of Sen. Robert’s bill.
The chairman’s proposal is centered on a strong foundation to protect interstate commerce and prevent state-by-state labeling laws. It will direct USDA to initiate formal rulemaking to set definitions and standards for the labeling of products that may contain ingredients derived from agricultural biotechnology. The bill also contains an educational component to inform consumers about the safety of GMOs.
REGULATIONS
New York Farm Bureau has long been in opposition to proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that members believe broaden the jurisdiction from navigable waters to also including dry land.
The new “Waters of the U.S.” rule will vastly increase the scope of the Clean Water Act and put an undue burden and more regulatory control on farmers and their land with no benefit to the environment.
Both houses of Congress voted in a bipartisan fashion to repeal the rule. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the measure.
That doesn’t mean this issue is settled. The Sixth Circuit Court has issued a stay based on legal concerns. While it works its way through the legal system, New York Farm Bureau will continue to work with Congress to find a solution on the matter along with advocating for more comprehensive regulatory reform.
New York Farm Bureau also was successful this year at the American Farm Bureau Federation national meeting in Orlando, FL to pass a resolution in the national policy book related to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
New York Farm Bureau supports allowing third party accredited individuals as well as Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to complete wetland determinations. This will help to reduce the amount of time farmers have to wait to have a determination completed. Currently, the delays of up to a year hinder what farmers can do with their land.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
New York Farm Bureau has long been saying we need a stable workforce on our farms or else the rural economy and our local food supply will ultimately suffer.
Despite the political climate in Washington and the current presidential campaign, immigration reform remains a top priority for New York Farm Bureau. It is time to end the immigration stalemate and pass reform legislation that addresses short and long-term farm labor needs.
Because of the unlikelihood of that happening in 2016, New York Farm Bureau is changing its focus this year to look for reforming the H2A seasonal guest worker program. This includes modernizing the application process to use electronic submissions as opposed to the current paper applications that must be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor.
In addition, New York Farm Bureau is looking for opportunities to open up the H2A program to dairy farmers who need help year round.
Until this is completed, New York Farm Bureau will work with Congress to minimize negative impacts of farm labor shortages and will oppose a mandatory E-Verify program unless and until a new comprehensive agricultural guest-worker program is in place to provide farmers with workforce security.
FOOD SAFETY RULES
Food safety is another top priority for New York Farm Bureau. The FDA is in the process of implementing new food safety rules as part of the Food Safety Modernization Act and New York Farm Bureau is monitoring the implementation, particularly those dealing with produce and animal feed, and will be working with the FDA to balance the compliance burden with an actual public health benefit.
Federal money should also be used to provide adequate training of inspectors and provide for inspections for foreign farms. The United States must ensure foreign farms and the goods that they produce are held to the same standards so as not to make domestic farms non-competitive and offshore our food production.
If we are to be able to compete on the world market place, our farmers’ hands cannot be tied by our own rules and food should be safe regardless of where it comes from.
TRADE
With a growing export market for a number of things that we produce in New York, New York Farm Bureau will continue to support the next generation of trade negotiations that remove unscientific barriers and high tariffs and provide new opportunities for our farms.
This includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union.
The Pacific agreement is expected to increase cash receipts and net exports from New York by $111.4 million and $66.2 million per year, respectively. It is estimated the increased marketing opportunities for New York’s farmers and ranchers will add more than 500 jobs to the New York economy.
Following the visits, New York Farm Bureau President Dean Norton and Elizabeth Wolters, NYFB’s associate director of national affairs, held a press conference call with reporters this morning to publicly unveil the priorities.
The priorities are:
GMO LABELING
New York’s visit was timely with next week’s expected markup of Sen. Pat Robert’s bill that would establish national standards for the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMO labeling is an important issue in New York state as a proposed bill looks to create a statewide label for ingredients created with the assistance of biotechnology. This disregards the clear scientific evidence that shows the food is just as safe and nutritious as ingredients bred using more traditional methods.
New York Farm Bureau opposes a statewide approach because it would create a patchwork of labeling laws that would prove costly for New York farmers and consumers alike. Because of the concern, New York Farm Bureau is supportive of Sen. Robert’s bill.
The chairman’s proposal is centered on a strong foundation to protect interstate commerce and prevent state-by-state labeling laws. It will direct USDA to initiate formal rulemaking to set definitions and standards for the labeling of products that may contain ingredients derived from agricultural biotechnology. The bill also contains an educational component to inform consumers about the safety of GMOs.
REGULATIONS
New York Farm Bureau has long been in opposition to proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that members believe broaden the jurisdiction from navigable waters to also including dry land.
The new “Waters of the U.S.” rule will vastly increase the scope of the Clean Water Act and put an undue burden and more regulatory control on farmers and their land with no benefit to the environment.
Both houses of Congress voted in a bipartisan fashion to repeal the rule. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the measure.
That doesn’t mean this issue is settled. The Sixth Circuit Court has issued a stay based on legal concerns. While it works its way through the legal system, New York Farm Bureau will continue to work with Congress to find a solution on the matter along with advocating for more comprehensive regulatory reform.
New York Farm Bureau also was successful this year at the American Farm Bureau Federation national meeting in Orlando, FL to pass a resolution in the national policy book related to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
New York Farm Bureau supports allowing third party accredited individuals as well as Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to complete wetland determinations. This will help to reduce the amount of time farmers have to wait to have a determination completed. Currently, the delays of up to a year hinder what farmers can do with their land.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
New York Farm Bureau has long been saying we need a stable workforce on our farms or else the rural economy and our local food supply will ultimately suffer.
Despite the political climate in Washington and the current presidential campaign, immigration reform remains a top priority for New York Farm Bureau. It is time to end the immigration stalemate and pass reform legislation that addresses short and long-term farm labor needs.
Because of the unlikelihood of that happening in 2016, New York Farm Bureau is changing its focus this year to look for reforming the H2A seasonal guest worker program. This includes modernizing the application process to use electronic submissions as opposed to the current paper applications that must be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor.
In addition, New York Farm Bureau is looking for opportunities to open up the H2A program to dairy farmers who need help year round.
Until this is completed, New York Farm Bureau will work with Congress to minimize negative impacts of farm labor shortages and will oppose a mandatory E-Verify program unless and until a new comprehensive agricultural guest-worker program is in place to provide farmers with workforce security.
FOOD SAFETY RULES
Food safety is another top priority for New York Farm Bureau. The FDA is in the process of implementing new food safety rules as part of the Food Safety Modernization Act and New York Farm Bureau is monitoring the implementation, particularly those dealing with produce and animal feed, and will be working with the FDA to balance the compliance burden with an actual public health benefit.
Federal money should also be used to provide adequate training of inspectors and provide for inspections for foreign farms. The United States must ensure foreign farms and the goods that they produce are held to the same standards so as not to make domestic farms non-competitive and offshore our food production.
If we are to be able to compete on the world market place, our farmers’ hands cannot be tied by our own rules and food should be safe regardless of where it comes from.
TRADE
With a growing export market for a number of things that we produce in New York, New York Farm Bureau will continue to support the next generation of trade negotiations that remove unscientific barriers and high tariffs and provide new opportunities for our farms.
This includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union.
The Pacific agreement is expected to increase cash receipts and net exports from New York by $111.4 million and $66.2 million per year, respectively. It is estimated the increased marketing opportunities for New York’s farmers and ranchers will add more than 500 jobs to the New York economy.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Cornell University Study Looks at Food Labeling
News from Cornell University:
Take a look at any food label and there’s a good chance all design elements, from the color palette to the smallest detail, were meticulously chosen.
Now, amid public debate about whether food companies should list genetically modified (GM) ingredients on their labels, that same deliberative process may be crucial to the perceived legitimacy surrounding controversial decisions.
A Cornell University study found consumers are more supportive of labeling decisions when they believe the company considered the public’s input in the process.
The study bolsters longstanding research into the impact of perceived fairness and transparency surrounding any decision-making process, known as procedural justice. For the first time, Cornell researchers investigated how the theory relates to the contentious issue of GM labeling, with implications for how companies reach their decisions and communicate them to the public.
For the study, researchers asked 450 participants to read one of four fictitious news articles detailing an agro-food company’s decision about labeling the GM content of their food products. The mock articles varied on four key points: the decision whether or not to label the presence of ingredients grown from GM seeds, and whether or not the company considered the public’s input as part of their deliberations.
Participants then gave their reactions on a six-point scale regarding the legitimacy of the process and whether they support the company’s decision.
Researchers found a significantly more positive reaction to a decision — regardless of whether it was to label or not — when people believed the company engaged with the public and used their input.
Even when companies made the generally unpopular choice not to label, the study showed people considered the decision more legitimate if they believed the company listened to their customers rather than made the decision on their own.
The study appeared in the Journal of Risk Research.
“People care about a process, even when they don’t get the decision that they want,” said study author Katherine McComas, professor and chair of the Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “Having a fairer process can lead to a more acceptable or perceived legitimate outcome, and can improve discourse even around polarized decisions,” she said.
While the study found people reacted more positively to a decision when they believed the company engaged the public, any decision that led to labeling was deemed more favorable compared to either non-labeling process.
That pro-labeling attitude is in line with other research and opinion polls showing a preference for GM ingredients to be displayed on packaging, she said.
Still, McComas and her say the results could provide insCght to risk managers and decision-makers about the value people place on a process that incorporates public input.
“It comes down to transparency, and this idea that people want the right to know in order to make an informed choice. A process that doesn’t involve the public, or doesn’t involve their values, undercuts the legitimacy of that decision. Transparency can build trust and legitimacy in that process,” McComas said
Take a look at any food label and there’s a good chance all design elements, from the color palette to the smallest detail, were meticulously chosen.
Now, amid public debate about whether food companies should list genetically modified (GM) ingredients on their labels, that same deliberative process may be crucial to the perceived legitimacy surrounding controversial decisions.
A Cornell University study found consumers are more supportive of labeling decisions when they believe the company considered the public’s input in the process.
The study bolsters longstanding research into the impact of perceived fairness and transparency surrounding any decision-making process, known as procedural justice. For the first time, Cornell researchers investigated how the theory relates to the contentious issue of GM labeling, with implications for how companies reach their decisions and communicate them to the public.
For the study, researchers asked 450 participants to read one of four fictitious news articles detailing an agro-food company’s decision about labeling the GM content of their food products. The mock articles varied on four key points: the decision whether or not to label the presence of ingredients grown from GM seeds, and whether or not the company considered the public’s input as part of their deliberations.
Participants then gave their reactions on a six-point scale regarding the legitimacy of the process and whether they support the company’s decision.
Researchers found a significantly more positive reaction to a decision — regardless of whether it was to label or not — when people believed the company engaged with the public and used their input.
Even when companies made the generally unpopular choice not to label, the study showed people considered the decision more legitimate if they believed the company listened to their customers rather than made the decision on their own.
The study appeared in the Journal of Risk Research.
“People care about a process, even when they don’t get the decision that they want,” said study author Katherine McComas, professor and chair of the Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “Having a fairer process can lead to a more acceptable or perceived legitimate outcome, and can improve discourse even around polarized decisions,” she said.
While the study found people reacted more positively to a decision when they believed the company engaged the public, any decision that led to labeling was deemed more favorable compared to either non-labeling process.
That pro-labeling attitude is in line with other research and opinion polls showing a preference for GM ingredients to be displayed on packaging, she said.
Still, McComas and her say the results could provide insCght to risk managers and decision-makers about the value people place on a process that incorporates public input.
“It comes down to transparency, and this idea that people want the right to know in order to make an informed choice. A process that doesn’t involve the public, or doesn’t involve their values, undercuts the legitimacy of that decision. Transparency can build trust and legitimacy in that process,” McComas said
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Meetings on Corn Lawsuit Today and Tomorrow
Meetings are coming up today and tomorrow (Aug. 25 and 26) concerning a lawsuit that deals with GMO corn.
The meeting are:
The lawsuit states this act put a lot of corn on the market that was supposed to go to China that now couldn't be sold there. The lawsuit claims this drove the price of corn down and farmers lost lots of money.
(China has since agreed to allow the Syngenta corn trait, called Agrisure Viptera, into China).
Any farmer who wants more information or is interested in joining the lawsuit should attend one of the meetings. The meetings are being put on by a Buffalo law firm.
The meeting are:
- Aug. 25 at 11 a.m., Hiffa’s Restaurant, 9560 State Route 12, Remsen
- Aug. 25 at 2 p.m., Jeb’s Restauant, 5403 Shady Ave., Lowville
- Aug. 25 at 5 p.m., Art’s Jug, 820 Huntington St., Watertown
- Aug. 26 at 8 a.m., The Hartwick Restaurant, 3496 NY-205, Hartwick
- Aug. 26 at 11 a.m., Park Place Grill,7-9 East Park Place, Norwich
- Aug. 26 at 1:30 p.m, Hobeau’s Fireside Grill, 10 S. West St., Homer
- Aug. 26 at 5:30 p.m., T&J’s Country Kitchen,7423 Seneca Road North, Hornell
The lawsuit states this act put a lot of corn on the market that was supposed to go to China that now couldn't be sold there. The lawsuit claims this drove the price of corn down and farmers lost lots of money.
(China has since agreed to allow the Syngenta corn trait, called Agrisure Viptera, into China).
Any farmer who wants more information or is interested in joining the lawsuit should attend one of the meetings. The meetings are being put on by a Buffalo law firm.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Monday, June 23, 2014
New GMO Labeling Will Cost Consumers Hundreds per Year
A study released by Professor
William Lesser in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management
at Cornell University shows that pending legislation that mandates
labeling of foods containing ingredients
that have been genetically modified would dramatically raise food costs
for consumers in New York.
A family of four would see an average increase of $500 each year, but for some, the increase could be closer to $800.
“Consumers already have a choice to
buy food labeled as non-GMO or organic
when they shop,” said Jeff Williams, chairman of the Empire State
Council of Agricultural Organization. “Families in this state
shouldn’t be burdened with additional costs because
of this unnecessary legislation.”
Hundreds of studies have shown that GMO foods are safe and have the same nutritional value as conventionally grown products.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
ICYMI: What Farmers are Saying about GMOs
This is from the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food:
A hot topic grabbing headlines recently is GMOs.
The technology behind GMOs
is fairly new, quite sophisticated and basically misunderstood by the
masses. Many consumers view GMOs with suspicion and even fear, and there
is plenty of misinformation on the Internet to fuel these
emotions. However, there are potential benefits to this technology that
may be surprising to some people:
Farmers using GMO crops report using
substantially less pesticides, water and fuel. GMO technology has
enormous potential for solving some of our world's big problems – such
as increasing production to feed a growing world population, or
delivering key nutrients to third-world countries.
Consumers should be aware that GMOs have
been tested for safety, and a recent review of 1,783 high-quality
research studies concluded that they are safe. While that's reassuring,
there still remains uncertainty over why GMOs are used in the first
place, and how they might impact our environment. For these questions,
it's best to talk to farmers.
Jennie Schmidt, Maryland farmer
Schmidt is a registered dietitian who also
works on her family farm in Maryland, growing many types of
crops – including GMO corn and soybean – alongside non-GMO crops. Her
farm is progressive, continuously trying out new forms of technology in
order to strengthen and protect the family business. Schmidt explains
that her GMO crops have a higher yield than the non-GMO crops, but the
real benefit comes from savings in time, labor, fuel and wear and tear
on her machinery. "All those things combined are very meaningful to a
family farm,” she notes.
Ken Kamiya, Hawaii farmer
In some cases, GMO technology has saved
family businesses. Papaya farming is a prime example. Kamiya is
president of Kamiya Gold, Inc, and he notes that “without GMO
technology, there would be no papaya business, and I would be out of
farming." Kamiya’s family has been growing papayas for the past 40
years, with the past 16 years using GMO papaya. His confidence in the
safety of his product is rock solid, and he points out that the papaya
industry has marketed roughly 400 million pounds of papaya since the
introduction of GMO technology, without a single negative incident.
Katie Pratt, Illinois farmer
The decision to use a GMO seed is not one
that farmers make lightly. According to Pratt, her family uses GMO crops
because of the clear value they bring to their family business. They
have greatly reduced the amount of insecticide that needs to be sprayed,
and they only need to treat the weeds at one point, not several times
over a growing season. Her soil has now improved, because she and her
family don't have to tromp through the fields as often. The family also
uses less fuel, because they spend less time in the tractor. “No one is
more aware than the farmer of the impact we have on the environment, in
addition to the urgency to feed and fuel a growing population, while
reducing our footprint on the planet,” she maintains.
Kevin Rogers, Arizona farmer
Sustainability is a word not often
associated with GMOs in popular press, but farmers who grow GMO crops
see them as a tool for sustainable farming. According to Rogers, if it
were not for GMO technology, the cotton industry in Arizona would not be
thriving or sustainable. The pest that was destroying Arizona cotton
crops was winning, and it was costing farmers more money to fight that
pest than the crop was worth. GMO cotton has produced plants that resist
the pest, and according to Rogers, it “has allowed farms in Arizona to
be sustainable over the long haul. This technology allows us to produce
more product on the same footprint, with less expense.”
Jay Schultz, Canadian farmer
Farmers use many different tools to manage
a healthy, sustainable farm. Farming involves weed management, insect
control and the wise use of resources in order for a farm to thrive as a
business. Schultz notes that farmers take the issues of health and
environmental safety very seriously when choosing farm management tools.
“As a farmer, I would not produce anything that I am not willing to
serve to my own family," he says. "Farmers work very closely with the
environment, and I want to leave the land in better condition than when I
found it. I want to create more with using less, with less impact on
the environment. GMOs are an invaluable technology to help achieve this
end goal.”
|
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Cornell Study Shows GMO Labeling Would Increase Food Prices
From the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food:
As food prices
continue to rise for families across the country, a new study from
Cornell University last week revealed that New York’s proposed mandatory
GMO labeling bill would cost families an average of $500 per year at
the checkout aisle.
The study comes on the heels of similar studies in
Washington state and California that showed mandatory GMO labels would
result in similar increases in the cost of food.
“American families deserve safe, abundant
and affordable food,” said Claire Parker, spokeswoman for the Coalition
for Safe and Affordable Food.
“GMOs have been used in our food supply
for more than 20 years and no study has ever shown them to be unsafe or
different from foods without GMOs. Repeated studies, however, have shown
that the high cost of mandatory labeling would dramatically increase
the price of groceries at the checkout aisle for consumers. A mandatory
GMO label will just make it more difficult and expensive for
hard-working American families to put food on the table,” she said.
The study, released last week,
found that families forced to buy organic food instead of conventional
foods containing GMOs could see their food prices increase as much as
$1,556 per family per year. Similarly, such a mandatory labeling law
would likely cost the state of New York millions of dollars in revenue
to implement the new requirements and to account for a loss in farm
income.
Earlier, the US Bureau of
Labor Statistics announced that April was the third consecutive month
that American families saw an increase in food prices, rising a total of
3.9 percent since January.
The study was conducted by Professor Bill
Lesser from the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at
Cornell University to evaluate the added costs that will be passed on to
consumers if mandatory labeling becomes law in New York.
For more information, visit www.cfsaf.org.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Organic, GMOs, Yes or No??
Check out this interesting http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/27/243163/#.UxTs__RdUjf blog entry from the Genetic Literacy Project.
Then send some comments on what you think.
Then send some comments on what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)