Comments on: Proposed US law to mandate GMOs? http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/ Stronger plants, stronger science, and stronger communication. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:17:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Nathaniel Wood http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-5823 Nathaniel Wood Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:52:52 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-5823 food aids are badly needed by third world countries and we really need to give something to the poor.`'; food aids are badly needed by third world countries and we really need to give something to the poor.`’;

]]> By: Biofortified » The US government is at it again! http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-4411 Biofortified » The US government is at it again! Sat, 29 May 2010 21:49:53 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-4411 [...] Proposed US law to mandate GMOs?, I posted the actual text of the The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384, introduced by [...] [...] Proposed US law to mandate GMOs?, I posted the actual text of the The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384, introduced by [...]

]]> By: Steve http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-4371 Steve Fri, 28 May 2010 07:16:42 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-4371 That's a good point, Ewan. Some have questioned why it must be mentioned specifically as an option, and it could be to prevent exclusion of such projects for political purposes just as much as it will highlight the research as being eligible for funding. That’s a good point, Ewan. Some have questioned why it must be mentioned specifically as an option, and it could be to prevent exclusion of such projects for political purposes just as much as it will highlight the research as being eligible for funding.

]]> By: MaryM http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3774 MaryM Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:24:36 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3774 Lugar responds to the claim, again: http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/95017-rep-lugar-no-mandate-for-genetic-modification <blockquote>The opinion piece by Drs. Herren and Ishii-Eiteman (“Genetically modified crops are not the answer”, The Hill, April 23, 2010) perpetuates a falsehood about the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act. Contrary to their assertion, the legislation does NOT include a mandate that U.S. foreign aid be spent on research into genetic modification technology. It does NOT require the use of GM technology by any farmers or government agencies. Under terms of the bill, the use of any technology is left to individual farmers, based on their particular circumstances. To be clear: There is no mandate for GM crops.</blockquote> Lugar responds to the claim, again:

http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/95017-rep-lugar-no-mandate-for-genetic-modification

The opinion piece by Drs. Herren and Ishii-Eiteman (“Genetically modified crops are not the answer”, The Hill, April 23, 2010) perpetuates a falsehood about the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act. Contrary to their assertion, the legislation does NOT include a mandate that U.S. foreign aid be spent on research into genetic modification technology. It does NOT require the use of GM technology by any farmers or government agencies. Under terms of the bill, the use of any technology is left to individual farmers, based on their particular circumstances. To be clear: There is no mandate for GM crops.

]]> By: Anastasia Bodnar http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3703 Anastasia Bodnar Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:09:06 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3703 I'm at <a href="http://www.ucs.iastate.edu/mnet/_repository/2010/bigmap/pdf/agenda.pdf" rel="nofollow">BIGMAP</a> talking to people from many different organizations about biotech. One topic I keep bringing up is the Global Food Security Act to see what people think about it. Interestingly, many people here don't even know about it, which leads me to believe that this Act contains no conspiracy to push biotech where it's not wanted - if there was, at least some of these guys would have known about it. Anecdotal evidence, 'tis true, but I totally expected people here to know about it and have opinions about it. A representative of IATP wasn't as down on biotech as I thought he might be based on Ben's comment (I will strike out that part of the above post). He's not a fan of corporate seed development or of glyphosate but those are separate issues. After reading some things on IATP's website, I have to wonder if there are some misconceptions about biotech that have gotten repeated too many times so that people believe they are true. There may be some potential there for Biofortified posts to clarify the science. I also spoke to a representative of Lutheran World Relief who was very enthusiastic about the Act, saying it (and its House sister) is the only legislation out there that aims to help people, especially farmers, in Africa. LWR believes the biotech clause will only take up a small portion of the total funding in the Act. They also believe it won't even have an effect in most African countries because most countries have no framework for regulating biotech. No one can introduce a biotech trait if the country has no way to accept it legally (see below). In a talk by Sally McCammon, a science advisor for biotech in the USDA, she made clear that there are no efforts to create an international regulatory body for biotechnology. It would be convenient to have a standardized system, but the sovereignty of each country to develop whatever regulatory network they want is not something that anyone in USDA, Codex, or other international bodies has any desire to infringe on. To bring that back to the Act and what the rep from LWR said, the size of the biotech research funded seems to depend on the countries that are receiving aid more than anything else. The Act doesn't say anything about changing biotech regs in those countries so spending must abide by what is already in place. I’m at BIGMAP talking to people from many different organizations about biotech. One topic I keep bringing up is the Global Food Security Act to see what people think about it. Interestingly, many people here don’t even know about it, which leads me to believe that this Act contains no conspiracy to push biotech where it’s not wanted – if there was, at least some of these guys would have known about it. Anecdotal evidence, ’tis true, but I totally expected people here to know about it and have opinions about it.

A representative of IATP wasn’t as down on biotech as I thought he might be based on Ben’s comment (I will strike out that part of the above post). He’s not a fan of corporate seed development or of glyphosate but those are separate issues. After reading some things on IATP’s website, I have to wonder if there are some misconceptions about biotech that have gotten repeated too many times so that people believe they are true. There may be some potential there for Biofortified posts to clarify the science.

I also spoke to a representative of Lutheran World Relief who was very enthusiastic about the Act, saying it (and its House sister) is the only legislation out there that aims to help people, especially farmers, in Africa. LWR believes the biotech clause will only take up a small portion of the total funding in the Act. They also believe it won’t even have an effect in most African countries because most countries have no framework for regulating biotech. No one can introduce a biotech trait if the country has no way to accept it legally (see below).

In a talk by Sally McCammon, a science advisor for biotech in the USDA, she made clear that there are no efforts to create an international regulatory body for biotechnology. It would be convenient to have a standardized system, but the sovereignty of each country to develop whatever regulatory network they want is not something that anyone in USDA, Codex, or other international bodies has any desire to infringe on.

To bring that back to the Act and what the rep from LWR said, the size of the biotech research funded seems to depend on the countries that are receiving aid more than anything else. The Act doesn’t say anything about changing biotech regs in those countries so spending must abide by what is already in place.

]]> By: Ben Lilliston http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3651 Ben Lilliston Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:48:20 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3651 A point of clarification in this article, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is listed in a paragraph on organizations supporting the Senate bill. The article linked to by IATP's Jim Harkness is referring to the House version of the bill, which does not include the GMO language. IATP objects to the GMO language in the Senate bill, views it as unnecessary, and would like to see it removed. A point of clarification in this article, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is listed in a paragraph on organizations supporting the Senate bill. The article linked to by IATP’s Jim Harkness is referring to the House version of the bill, which does not include the GMO language. IATP objects to the GMO language in the Senate bill, views it as unnecessary, and would like to see it removed.

]]> By: Karl Haro von Mogel http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3647 Karl Haro von Mogel Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:42:42 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3647 That's a good point, Ewan. Some have questioned why it must be mentioned specifically as an option, and it could be to prevent exclusion of such projects for political purposes just as much as it will highlight the research as being eligible for funding. That’s a good point, Ewan. Some have questioned why it must be mentioned specifically as an option, and it could be to prevent exclusion of such projects for political purposes just as much as it will highlight the research as being eligible for funding.

]]> By: Anastasia Bodnar http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3629 Anastasia Bodnar Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:44:19 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3629 That seems to be Senator Lugar's intent, if I'm reading his statement correctly. That seems to be Senator Lugar’s intent, if I’m reading his statement correctly.

]]> By: Party Cactus http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3618 Party Cactus Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:35:33 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3618 Exactly. Science aside, I always found mandatory GMO labeling to be a lot like mandatory labeling for Halal or Kosher products. If you want to follow those rules, more power to you, but don't try to bend the law for your own beliefs, and don't try to pass those beliefs off as fact. I don't see Muslims & Jews demanding mandatory labeling of their dietary laws, just imagine the reaction we'd see if they did. No one deserves a free pass here. If you want food labeled as X, that's fine, whatever the free market will bear, but do it with your own wallet, not mine. Exactly. Science aside, I always found mandatory GMO labeling to be a lot like mandatory labeling for Halal or Kosher products. If you want to follow those rules, more power to you, but don’t try to bend the law for your own beliefs, and don’t try to pass those beliefs off as fact. I don’t see Muslims & Jews demanding mandatory labeling of their dietary laws, just imagine the reaction we’d see if they did. No one deserves a free pass here. If you want food labeled as X, that’s fine, whatever the free market will bear, but do it with your own wallet, not mine.

]]> By: Ewan R http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/proposed-us-law-to-mandate-gmos/#comment-3615 Ewan R Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:36:49 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=3040#comment-3615 Thinking a little about it, was GM perhaps included specifically so that it could not be excluded at a later date? Ie when funding is being doled out if the bill did not explicity say the funding should/could/would be used for GM technology then is there a risk that at some later date, under a less than favorable distributor of monies, that a project could be excluded entirely because it involved GM technology (as opposed to any other aspect of biotechnology) whereas when the letter of the law is explicit that GM technology is included then it becomes harder to withold funding over this. So while the bill does not mandate that funding absolutely must go to research into GM exclusively (which would be a bad thing) it does to an extent mandate that where appropriate funding will go towards GM research (which in my opinion is a great thing - policy absolutely should be geared towards including all the available tools - if this requires convoluted legalese to make sure something as polarizing as GM is not excluded - and let's make no mistake here, the reason GM is highlighted as opposed to MAS, mutagenesis or such like is because it is such a polarizing technology and at risk of being excluded entirely on ideological grounds) Thinking a little about it, was GM perhaps included specifically so that it could not be excluded at a later date? Ie when funding is being doled out if the bill did not explicity say the funding should/could/would be used for GM technology then is there a risk that at some later date, under a less than favorable distributor of monies, that a project could be excluded entirely because it involved GM technology (as opposed to any other aspect of biotechnology) whereas when the letter of the law is explicit that GM technology is included then it becomes harder to withold funding over this.

So while the bill does not mandate that funding absolutely must go to research into GM exclusively (which would be a bad thing) it does to an extent mandate that where appropriate funding will go towards GM research (which in my opinion is a great thing – policy absolutely should be geared towards including all the available tools – if this requires convoluted legalese to make sure something as polarizing as GM is not excluded – and let’s make no mistake here, the reason GM is highlighted as opposed to MAS, mutagenesis or such like is because it is such a polarizing technology and at risk of being excluded entirely on ideological grounds)

]]>