Articles

It’s been a little more than a year since the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research experts upended the agrichemical industry’s favorite child. The group, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared the globe’s most widely used herbicide – glyphosate – to be a probable human carcinogen.

Since then, Monsanto Co., which draws roughly a third of its $15 billion in annual revenues from its Roundup branded glyphosate-based herbicide products, (and much of the rest from glyphosate-tolerant crop technology) has been on a mission to invalidate the IARC finding. Through an army of foot soldiers that include industry executives, public relation professionals and public university scientists, the company has called for a rebuke of IARC’s work on glyphosate.

CAMBRIA, Calif.- Standing on the ridge overlooking her central California farm, new widow Teri McCall sees her husband Jack nearly everywhere. There, atop the highest hill, is where the couple married in 1975- two self-described “hippies” who knew more about how to surf than farm. And over there, surrounded by the lemon, avocado and orange trees Jack planted, sits the 800-square-foot house the young Vietnam veteran built for his bride and a family that grew to include two sons and a daughter. Solar panels Jack set up in a sun-drenched stretch of grass power the farm’s irrigation system.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s ongoing risk assessment of the world’s most widely used herbicide is starting to generate more questions than answers. On Monday, it also generated a giant “oops” from the EPA.

If you started your day off with a whole wheat bagel and a bowl of instant strawberries-and-cream-flavored oatmeal today, you might think you made some fairly healthy breakfast choices. You might want to think again.

The numbers don’t lie — U.S. consumer demand for organic food is surging as people look for what they see as healthy offerings for themselves and their families. But meeting the growing consumer demand is not proving easy, and a deepening divide within the industry is now roiling the landscape of the $39 billion industry amid allegations of an erosion in the rigid standards that have drawn consumers to the premium market.

Ding! Round 2 in Washington’s GMO labeling battle is underway. Though many of those pushing for mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients have been celebrating victory after last month’s failure of a Senate bill that would block such labeling, the on-the-ground reality, say those on both sides of the policy debate, is that the fight is not over — not even close.

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.