The view from NITHIA...
columnist: Michael

Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
ICCR's "Don't Plant GM Beets" Campaign

---

At long last a bright point in the genetically modified food debate: The Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility's campaign "Don't Plant GM Beets"

---

by Michael
(Libertarian)
Friday, March 7, 2008

At long last a bright point in the genetically modified food debate: The Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility's campaign "Don't Plant GM Beets"

The cries of an informed minority of Americans that genetically modified foods should be labeled as such has up to now fallen on deaf ears at the FDA and at the federal level of our government.

But when an ethics based block of investors who represent $100 billion worth of invested capital speaks even Wall Street listens! Just this past week the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), ( www.iccr.org ), launched its website based campaign "Don't Plant GMO Beets," ( [link edited for length] ). From this site you can send a form letter to 63 of the biggest food related industries and inform them of your position as a consumer against GMO's and that if a product is not labeled as not containing GMO's you will have to assume that it does contain GMO's and subsequently not purchase it.

Though ICCR has taken a stand against GMO's in general their recent action is in proactive response to this years advent of the recently FDA approved Monsanto genetically modified variety of sugar beet. It will be planted for the first time in the spring of 2008 and end up in the food supply soon after the 2008 harvest.

At long last a heavyweight has weighed in and taken a stand against the continued introduction of genetically modified organisms into our food supply, unlabeled as containing such and therefore leaving the consumer unable to make an informed choice as whether or not to buy and consume such products. Effectively they have sent the message, "You've already gone too far but go no farther!" According to recent surveys over 50% would opt not to buy foods that contain GMO's if given an informed choice, myself included.

That is exactly why the multi-national corporations that developed and introduced this new technology have lobbied and influenced the FDA and our elected officials into not making informative labeling mandatory. One of the worst offenders, Monsanto, has even taken the issue to court in the past to prevent some food producers from labeling their products as not containing GMO's. They eventually lost, of course, but bought themselves the luxury of a court injunction that prevented such non-GMO labeling for a delay of years while it was tied up in the courts pending a final ruling and giving them an uncontested and uncontroversial start up period for their recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBHG) product for the dairy industry. Not to mention a sort of revolving door of personnel who have worked for Monsanto and subsequently worked at the FDA and vice versa.

The mainstream media bears just as much of the guilt of attempting to keep the public at large ignorant of the contamination of our food supply with genetically altered foods offering the issue perhaps less air time over the years than they have on Ron Paul's bid for the Republican candidacy in 2008. This controversy should have been brought into the spotlight years ago. One can only draw the conclusion that the "powers that be" want GMO's in the food supply and that this has been and is currently incorporated into the designs of the true ruling portion of our society in our nation even though the majority of society as a whole does not want it.

It is very frustrating for me to be aware of the fact that products containing genetically modified organisms are on the local grocery store shelves and I don't want to consume them and I especially don't want to see my grandchildren eating them but I cannot make an informed choice because they are not labeled.

There a good many reasons that GMO's should be differentiated from natural products. There has been weak to nonexistent governmental oversight. The technology is so relatively new that no long term studies have been made. For the most part approval has been influenced by the corporations that developed the GMO's with a lack of impartial independent studies having been conducted. Many people object to any and all forms of genetic engineering based on ethical, moral and religious beliefs. Many who subscribe to dietary restrictions based on their religion or belief system could actually be unknowingly violating their beliefs by unknowingly consuming GMO's since it is not uncommon for animal DNA to be incorporated into fruits, vegetables and grains during the development of GMO varieties!

The response to ICCR's stated position has been almost immediate. This move by ICCR might effectively help in making  voluntary labeling attractive to those producers and processors who do not use GMO's for suddenly it is now a potentially desirable and effective marketing strategy.

In an article on The Restaurant Network's website FohBoh.com a columnist recommended:

"Quickly examine your menu. Make sure you are not using any foods or beverages from suppliers who can't ASSURE YOU that they are NOT using "GE" (genetically-engineered) or modified foods in what they are selling to you. Then get small stickers made with the red international symbol for "no" or "do not" or "forbidden." You know the one with the red bar at an angle crossing a circle. So you can easily read the words, place this copy: "no genetically engineered (or modified) foods here"; or if you don't have space, just say: "No GMO food here".
"Why bother? When you put that sticker on your menu, you will automatically raise a question in the mind of your customer: "why doesn't that other place just down the street say they don't use them too? What do you think will be going through the mind of your customer?"

(Excerpted from: Turning Non-Genetically Modified Lemons into Lemonade by Ray MacNaughton)

Now this is all a good and wonderful thing which ICCR has initiated. If you are among the 50%+ who do not wish to purchase and consume genetically engineered food products I'm sure you will participate in it. But can it go all the way to finally influence the FDA to yield to the obvious will of the majority and simply label foods as either containing GMO's or not containing GMO's? It's really not a big thing to ask. But will it actually happen on the scale which ethics and responsible government oversight demands?

This is a hard call to make. The big corporations that have been developing, promoting and using genetically engineered food resources are among the largest in the world and that these GMO's are already in our food supply has been a fact for over a decade now. Their influence within the corridors of power unseen is unfathomable.

Unless a real bandwagon and backlash develops over this I fear that the voluntary non-GMO labeling will become just a trendy fad of safe foods that the average person will not be able to afford on a daily basis sort of like the all natural, organic selections that are indeed already there, but how many can afford them on a daily basis? And ethical investors can feel good about investing their money into food processing companies that do not use GMO's and label their products as such. I might be wrong in this but I would venture to speculate that ethical investors are outnumbered by investors with no ethic other than making the largest return on their investment regardless of the ethical nature of what they are investing in. Unfortunately I really don't see the real bandwagon and backlash developing that I would like to see develop: one in which elected officials are voted out of office over this issue and  appointed officials are replaced by those with an ethic of governmental responsibility to the electorate rather than to the corporate.

At any rate, ICCR's move is a bright point in an issue that has had a long, dark history for those who have been aware of it but unable to do anything about it.

In the past ICCR has operated via the means of "shareholder resolutions" in order to influence corporate responsibility on issues where it feels the policies of corporations are at variance with the general welfare of society. The launch of its Don't Grow GM Beets campaign is a much more proactive approach and one in which the public at large can participate and which decidedly deserves to be participated in and applauded!

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
6 thumbs so far

2008 Michael, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, March 7, 2008
Last modified: Friday, March 7, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Michael only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Michael of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.