/arlene spark\
sent via iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Food Politics by Marion Nestle <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: June 30, 2016 at 1:41:50 PM EDT
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Food Politics
Reply-To: Food Politics by Marion Nestle <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Food Politics<http://www.foodpolitics.com>

________________________________

The FDA weighs in on GMO labeling<http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/06/the-fda-weighs-in-on-gmo-labeling/>

Posted: 30 Jun 2016 06:51 AM PDT

The Senate’s proposed GMO labeling bill gives food companies three options:

  *   An on-package code that consumers can scan with a smartphone
  *   A 1-800 number
  *   A symbol to be developed by USDA

None of these does what Mars is already doing<http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/04/has-mars-joined-the-food-movement/> on M&Ms, for example—a straightforward, easy-to-read, quickly understandable statement that the product is “partially produced with genetic engineering.”



Now, the FDA has just produced a technical assessment<https://www.politicopro.com/f/?id=00000155-9c48-deee-af7f-dcf858a70001> of the Senate bill.

This makes it clear that the Senate has no idea what labeling rules entail.  Some examples:

  *   We note that provisions to allow information regarding the GE content of food to be presented only in an electronically accessible form and not on the package label would be in tension with FDA’s statute and regulations, which require disclosures on food labels.
  *   We are concerned that USDA’s regulations implementing the mandatory standard under this bill could conflict with FDA’s labeling requirements.
  *   We note several points in the drafting of the bill that raise confusion.
  *   It appears that the intent is to have the bill apply to all foods except those that are essentially meat, poultry, or eggs, and that the drafters may have assumed, incorrectly, that products covered by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act are not covered by the FD&C Act.
  *   [One section requires] the USDA regulations to “prohibit a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because [of a certain fact]”. This is unclear — the language of “prohibit[ion]” and of ‘be[ing] considered”, if taken literally, would mean that an advocacy group that thought of these foods as being bioengineered would thereby have violated the USDA regulation and could be subject to sanctions.

The Senate bill is decidedly corporate-friendly.  It is decidedly not consumer-friendly.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks so.


        Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States