My Turn: Know what you eat by Rep. Geran Tarr

RepGeranTarr

By REP. GERAN TARR
FOR THE JUNEAU EMPIRE
Source: http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2015-03-09/my-turn-know-what-you-eat

What could be more wholesome and American than apples and apple pie? Or salmon. What could be healthier and more Alaskan than feeding your family salmon? There’s nothing more basic than feeding yourself or your family. But in the strange, new world of genetically modified foods, do Alaskans really know what we’re eating? Pending state and federal legislation requiring food labeling would give Alaskans basic tools to make informed choices about what we’re feeding our families.

As many Alaskans already know, the federal Food and Drug Administration is considering an application to approve the first genetically modified fish. A Massachusetts-based company produced a freakishly fast-growing salmon by implanting genes from an eel-like fish and Chinook salmon into Atlantic salmon. We’ve come to know this genetically modified animal as Frankenfish. It’s the first time the FDA would approve a genetically modified animal for human consumption. Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved apples that have been genetically modified. Welcome to our plates, the Frankenapple.

Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals modified to include genetic material from a non-related species. Genetically modified foods present many risks.

For salmon, there are concerns about the fish’s impact on the market and the risk of genetically modified fish escaping into the wild. Research has shown that the genetically modified fish can out compete their wild relatives and contamination of our wild salmon would be devastating. Adequate testing has not been done to whether there are long-term health impacts from eating engineered fish. Over 1.8 million individuals as well as broad range of fishing trade groups, consumer and health advocacy organizations, and leading chefs oppose approval of Frankenfish. Sixty retailers, including Safeway and Kroger, representing more than 9,000 grocery stores across the country, have pledged not to sell Frankenfish.

For crops, concerns include increased pesticide use; pesticide resistant weeds; losing genetic diversity in food crops; and questions about long-term health effects.

Despite federal action, Alaskans continue to lead the opposition to the dangerous introduction of Frankenfish and other genetically modified foods. An important strategy we’ve adopted is to require the labeling of genetically modified food so that consumers know what we’re putting on our plates.

On the federal level, Senator Murkowski has offered amendments to the 2015 Agriculture spending bill to require labeling of genetically engineered salmon.

On the state level, I, along with Rep. Kawasaki, have introduced House Bill 92, “GMO Labeling”. This bill would require labeling of genetically modified food products sold in Alaska.

The United States is one of the few industrialized nations that does not already require labeling of genetically modified foods. Over 60 other countries, including China and Russia, require labeling if food includes genetically modified ingredients. Many of these same products are sold on the shelves of our supermarkets without labeling. Since these companies are already producing products with labeling for their products sold worldwide, it shouldn’t take much to switch the packaging to show the genetically modified ingredients for products sold in the US.

Labeling of genetically modified foods is already required in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut. Legislation to require labeling is pending in 20 other states.

To give Alaskans a chance to learn more, events are scheduled across Alaska the week of March 9-13. We’ll be screening the award-winning film “GMO OMG” and giving Alaskans the chance to ask questions about genetically modified foods.

If you’re in Juneau, I invite you to stop by the capitol for some of my homemade non-GMO apple pie on Friday, March 13 and learn more.

• Geran Tarr represents the Anchorage neighborhoods of Airport Heights, Mountain View and Russian Jack in the Alaska House of Representatives. She can be reached at 907-360-4047 or [email protected]

03.04.2015 Statewide Poster GMO OMG jpeg

GMO OMG Sitka jpg

GMOs: Public Opinion vs. Corporate Science

Note: The Daily Sitka Sentinel printed the following Letter to the Editor on February 2, 2015.

The Sitka Sentinel ran an AP story last Thursday titled “Poll: Gap Between Scientists’, Public View.” The premise of the article is that science and scientists make up a monolithic body that deals only with facts, and when the public disagrees with that body, then science is right and the public is wrong.

Partys Over Monsanto

The article quoted as evidence opinions gathered from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the country’s largest general science organization. … In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe.”

Unfortunately, much of American-based science is bought and paid for by multi-national corporations. In 2012, GMWatch published an article titled “AAAS captured from the top down” which exposes the corporate bias of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The agri-business giant, Monsanto, is a regular major sponsor of the group’s annual gatherings. And yes, sponsorship has its privileges:

At AAAS’ 2010 annual meeting Robert T. Fraley (Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer and an AAAS fellow) delivered a half-hour keynote speech that was little more than a futuristic infomercial about how GMOs will soon feed the world and eliminate hunger. No one was invited to rebut Fraley, not even a representative from the Union of Concerned Scientists who was present in the audience, but instead was shunted off to the side, where all he could do was hand out a few leaflets.(1)

Best selling author, Michele Simon, further implicates the AAAS for releasing a statement “on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto.”(2)

Dr. John Ioannidis spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science. Not surprisingly, he found that corporate-backed science is tainted by corruption from start to finish. Ioannidis said, “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”(3)

The biotech industry claims that “The GMO debate is dead,” and “There is scientific consensus on GMO safety.”(4) Nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous scientific organizations and independent experts state that GMOs are not safe, and that they should be labeled or banned.(5)(6) And no less important, countless moms report that their children have been cured of serious health conditions when they adopt a GMO free diet.(7)

Don’t expect Monsanto to change its tune any time soon regarding the dangers of GMOs. It still claims that Agent Orange “is not the cause of serious long-term health effects.”(8)

The question of GMO safety is important, but so are many other questions that lie beyond the purview of science—questions regarding the ethics and morality of GMOs. For example: Is it ethical to patent and privatize nature? Is it ethical to contaminate nature (salmon, trees, corn, etc.) with GMOs? Is it ethical to sue farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GMOs? Is it ethical to turn food crops into pesticide delivery systems? Is it ethical to kill soils with repeated applications of Roundup and other chemical cocktails? Is it ethical to block state, federal, and international legislation to label GMOs? Is it ethical to bribe legislators and government leaders? Is it ethical to fill key positions in regulatory agencies with Monsanto employees? Is it ethical for the U.S. government to provide aid to foreign countries on the condition that they accept GMOs? Is it ethical to use war to replace Iraq’s bio-diverse agricultural system with a handful of patented GMOs? Is it ethical to declare seed saving to be a criminal act? Is it ethical to commercialize Terminator technology, the technology that renders seeds sterile?(9)

On January 30, 2015, Alaska Representatives Geran Tarr and Scott Kawasaki introduced a GMO labeling bill.(10) That means Monsanto lobbyists and propagandists will soon infest Alaska, and they will employ the same scare tactics and disinformation campaigns they used to narrowly defeat GMO labeling in California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. Last summer, the citizens of Vermont prevailed against the multi-billion dollar GMO industry to become the first state to mandate GMO labeling. Let’s become the second—the second of fifty states to label GMOs. But remember that GMO labeling is so much more than a safety issue; it’s part of our stewardship as human beings and Alaskans to protect the Earth, sustainable food systems, and this precious state we call home.

— Brett Wilcox, Author of We’re Monsanto, Feeding the World, Lie After Lie

Notes
1. “AAAS captured from the top down,” GMWatch, November 2, 2012, http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2012/14388-aaas-captured-from-the-top-down
2. Michele Simon, “Serving Science or Monsanto?” Eat Drink Politics, October 29, 2012, http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2012/10/29/serving-science-or-monsanto/
3. David H. Freedman, “Lies, Damn Lies, and Medical Science,” The Atlantic, October 4, 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
4. Jon Entine, “AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change,” Huffington Post, January 30, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html
5. “‘No scientific consensus on GMO safety’ statement published in peer-reviewed journal,” European Network of Scientists, January 29, 2015, http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/
6. “After opposition: Monsanto patent on tomatoes revoked: Monsanto implicated in fraud and abuse of patent law,” No Patent on Seeds!, December 22, 2014, http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/information/news/after-opposition-monsanto-patent-tomatoes-revoked
7. http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/
8. “Agent Orange Victims Sue Monsanto,” CorpWatch, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11638
9. F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction, Global Research, 2007
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0973714727/
10. Tarr, Kawasaki, “House Bill No. 92,” January 30, 2015, http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/29/Bills/HB0092A.PDF

Subscribe for New Post Notifications

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

Running The Country will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.