Articles

In Sen. Pat Roberts’ failed bid to convince the U.S. Senate to advance a bill banning mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods on Wednesday, the Kansas Republican ran down a long list of reasons he said mandatory labeling of such foods would prove calamitous for consumers, farmers and the food industry.

The U.S. Senate looks poised to vote this week on the contentious national debate over GMO labeling, but as the potentially landmark vote looms, facts that should be at the heart of the discussion are being lost.

After years of state-by-state battles over consumer calls for mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs), time is quickly running out for the agribusiness and food manufacturing industries working to block such labeling.

How much money does it cost to tell consumers the truth? In the current battle over whether or not foods made with genetically modified ingredients must be labeled, the answer to that question is not easy to come by. Supporters of GMO labeling say the costs associated with implementing labeling will be nearly nonexistent — possibly $2.30 a person per year — a pittance for information that some consumer groups consider critical health and safety information. But opponents of labeling say the costs could be much higher; so high that they could be crippling to some families.

It’s about time. Plans by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation’s chief food safety regulator, to start testing food for residues of the world’s most widely used weed killer come at a pivotal point for both the American consumer and U.S. agribusiness as safety concerns rise over use of the herbicide called glyphosate, more commonly known as Roundup. Until now, the federal government has steadfastly resisted testing foods for residues of glyphosate, even though regulators annually test thousands of food samples for hundreds of other less commonly used pesticides. This resolve against looking for potentially harmful residues has held fast despite the fact that multiple scientific studies in recent years have linked glyphosate to cancer and a range of other health and environmental concerns. Last year, the World Health Organization’s cancer experts declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen after examining many of those studies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation’s chief food safety regulator, plans to start testing certain foods for residues of the world’s most widely used weed killer after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts last year declared the chemical a probable human carcinogen. The FDA’s move comes amid growing public concern about the safety of the herbicide known as glyphosate, and comes after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) rebuked the agency for failing to do such assessments and for not disclosing that short-coming to the public.

Former University of Illinois food science professor Bruce Chassy is known for his academic gravitas. Now retired nearly four years, Chassy still writes and speaks often about food safety issues, identifying himself with the full weight of the decades of experience earned at the public university and as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. Chassy tells audiences that before he retired in 2012, he worked “full time” doing research and teaching.

When microbiologist Bruce Hemming was hired two years ago to test breast milk samples for residues of the key ingredient in the popular weed-killer Roundup, Hemming at first scoffed at the possibility. Hemming, the founder of St. Louis-based Microbe Inotech Laboratories, knew that the herbicidal ingredient called glyphosate was not supposed to accumulate in the human body. Hemming, who previously worked as a scientist for Roundup maker Monsanto Co., now operates a commercial testing facility located just a few miles from Monsanto’s headquarters.

As we kick off 2016 the leaders of many of the nation's largest and most powerful food companies are doubling down on their commitment to block mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops, and they are seeking Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's help to do so. The issue has become urgent for the industry as what would be the nation's first mandatory labeling measure is set to go into effect July 1 in Vermont.

Joe Ferguson says he just couldn't take it any longer. The former inspector for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) spent more than 23 years monitoring operations inside pork processing plants inspecting hog carcasses for signs of anything that could translate to a food safety problem, in particular hints of Salmonella contamination on the processing line.But Ferguson, who retired in September 2014, is now a so-called "whistleblower," joining forces with critics who say that a trial high-speed hog processing inspection program piloted by USDA is a food safety nightmare. Critics charge that the faster line speeds and fewer numbers of government inspectors on processing lines called for by the program result in carcasses flying by too fast for inspectors to spot signs of trouble.