Articles

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.

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.