Karl Haro von Mogel: : University of Wisconsin–Madison

University of Wisconsin–Madison:

NameKARL J HARO VON MOGEL

E-mailharovonmogel@wisc.edu

Phone(608) 262-6521

TitleHONORARY ASSOC/FELLOW

DivisionCOLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL & LIFE SCIENCES

DepartmentHORTICULTURE

UnitHORTICULTURE-GEN

Karl earned his Ph.D. in Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics at UW-Madison, with a minor in Life Science Communication. His dissertation was on both the genetics of sweet corn and plant genetics outreach. He currently works as a Post Doctoral Research Associate for the USDA in Madison, WI. His favorite produce might just be squash. (BioFortified)

Dr. Kevin M. Folta | Horticultural Sciences at University of Florida

Dr. Kevin M. Folta | Horticultural Sciences at University of Florida:

Biotech Literacy Day Presentation
Biofortified Blogger
GMO Answers Expert

Dr. Kevin M. Folta

Office:	2339 Fifield Hall
Phone:	352-273-4812
E-mail:	kfolta@ufl.edu
For more information, visit Dr. Folta's website.

 Professor and Chairman

Areas of Research

• Functional genomics of small fruit crops
• Plant transformation
• Photomorphogenesis and flowering
• Genetic basis of flavors

Educational Background

• Ph.D. – 1998; Molecular Biology, University of Illinois at Chicago
• M.S.  – 1992; Biology, Northern Illinois University
• B.S. – 1989; Biology, Northern Illinois University

Teaching Responsibilities

• FRC1010- Fruit for Fun and Profit
• PCB6528- Plant Cell and Developmental Biology

Work and International Experiences

• December 2012- Present: Interim Department Chair, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
• May 2012- May 2017: Visiting Scientist, Shanghai Academy for Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai China
• July 2011 – December 2012:  Graduate Coordinator, Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
• July 2008- present: Associate Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
• November 2002-June 2008: Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
• March 2000- November 2002:  Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Dr. Kevin M. Folta, from the University of Florida, discusses the case of Dr. Don M. Huber, and takes down his claim of discovering a new mystery pathogen related to GMO food. Biotechnology: Feeding the World, or a Brave New World of Agriculture? Have a Beer with Dr. Kevin Folta

Rob Wager | Biology Department Pro-BioTech Commenter

Rob Wager | Biology Department:





Department of Biology
Malaspina University-College
900 Fifth Street
Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5S5
Canada


Website

Robert Wager (The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up—Here's Why)Jan 11, 2014

I wonder how many people know of the European National Academies of Science 2013 report on GE crops?  in it they say:

There is no validated evidence that GM crops

have greater adverse impact on health and the

environment than any other technology used in

plant breeding.

and

“There is compelling evidence that GM crops

can contribute to sustainabledevelopment

goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the

environment and the economy.”

EASAC 2013 

David J. Brown - Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences | College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

David J. Brown - Heavy NoOn44 article commenter.

David J. Brown

Associate Professor

Curriculum Vitae (pdf)

EducationPhD/MS Soil Science/Biometry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002 MS Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1997 BS/BA Electrical Engineering/Rhetoric, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1988

Research InterestsMy research group is focused on measuring, modeling and explaining the spatial variability of soil properties and processes at hillslope to regional scales.  In pursuing this research, we make extensive use of digital terrain modeling, optical remote sensing, spatial statistics, and proximal soil sensing techniques (e.g. VisNIR spectroscopy).

Article: 

Biotech's Losing Game of Whack-A-Mole

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

Rick North, you can't really be intellectually honest and cite earthopensource as a credible source for science. Cherry picking a handful of poor studies in weak journals is advocacy, not science. Highlighting a handful of scientists who have doubts about GMOs does not balance out the vast majority who believe they are as safe as conventionally bred crops.

And you completely misunderstand the comparison of anti-GMO folks with climate change deniers. They are clearly not the same people. The argument is that they are equivalent in how they operate in a hermetically sealed world, reading only their own websites with carefully cultivated truth. And they are both clearly anti-science. But the anti-GMO folks are almost entirely on the left while the climate change deniers are almost entirely on the right.

On this forum, there have been multiple links provided to independent research, but clearly you haven't taken the time to explore this information seriously. It hasn't been an honest dialog. Instead you fall back on the giant conspiracy that all scientists have been corrupted by the 197th largest corporation in America. This is exactly analogous to the climate change deniers who believe that there is a vast government-academic conspiracy on climate science. Those on the right distrust government. Those on the left inherently distrust corporations. Both put their fingers in their ears and shut out the vast body of science on the GMO and climate change issues, respectively, by simply asserting that the academic enterprise has been corrupted by the enemy (government or corporations, take your pick).

If someone wants to get a balanced, informed, and accessible take on this debate from a science writer who actually supports labeling, spend some time reading Nathanael Johnson at Grist. I don't agree with everything Nathanael writes, but he is honest and informed, something we certainly need more of in this discussion.

http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

The claim that there is no independent research on GMOs is a wildly false internet meme. For the formal approval process for ANY new food or drug, a company must pay for the science to document their submission (either done in house or more often by private firms). But that doesn't mean that academics haven't conduced research as well.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) recently released a report based on thousands of academic studies.
"EASAC also sought to placate green critics who claim that the majority of scientific studies on GMO safety are biased because they are carried out by researchers who are paid for by industrial lobby groups.

“We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC."

http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693

Alan McHughen | GMO Answers

Alan McHughen | GMO Answers:

"Dr. McHughen served as a Jefferson Science Fellow at the US Department of State and as a Senior Policy Analyst at the White House."

This review is from: Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods (Hardcover)
The author Allen McHughen promises the reader an unbiased view on GM, especially the potential and hazards or risks associated with it. In the end however, he clearly explains the benefits, but belittles the REAL problems of GM which he avoids. It is a gross manipulation of the truth. He is funded by MONSANTO, a totally pro GM company whose products have ruined farmers in India. He calls all the hazards of GM mere myths - invented by the media. He fails to address any hazards and tells only half the truth. How can he provide an unbiased viewpoint when he has genetically modified food himself? If you read VERY carefully between the lines you will realize he contradicts himself several times. The uncareful reader is easily swayed by his complex yet empty arguments into thinking that GM is only good and has no risks. It is just a book of lies!!

In the mid-1990s, tomatoes genetically engineered in California were made into a tomato paste that sold well in England. But the tomatoes were short-lived. Photo: Alan McHughen. (Next Meal)

Alan McHughen faces strong criticism from the website Lobbywatch, which notes that McHughen's "booklet 'Biotechnology and Food' was published by the American Council for Science and Health, which has been described as an 'industry front group that produces PR ammunition for the food processing and chemical industries.'"[3] (Sourcewatch)

Who’s afraid of the big bad GMO?

By: Alan McHughen on January 21, 2013 |

Prince Charles and Junk Science

Just mention “GMO” (genetically modified organism) and some people run scared – why? GMOs are products of technologies developed during the 1970s and 1980s that allow researchers to take DNA (i.e., genetic information) from any plant, animal or microbe and combine it with the DNA of any other plant, animal or microbe. The resulting transgenic organism (e.g., a bacterium with a human insulin gene inserted) remains essentially identical; however, it now expresses insulin per the example or whatever the new trait of the inserted DNA is.

Each fellow receives a stipend from the U.S. Department of State for living expenses for a full year; additional funding is available to each fellow for travel associated with his/her assignment. In addition, fellows continue receiving salaries and benefits from their home institutions. After the fellows return to their institutions, they remain available as consultants to the State Department for an additional five years. (SeedQuest)

McHughen argues that many of the concerns about genetic engineering are based in reality on "myths" and "misinformation". McHughen has even claimed, "Opponents to GM put forward untenable pseudo-scientific assertions, then run away, unwilling or unable to defend their positions." (PowerBase)

"[Organic] Crops aren’t healthier or safer" - "RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Many organic supporters are willing to pay exorbitant costs for organic foods. They claim that organic food is worth sometimes double the regular price because it is, among other things:
* “Natural,” grown without pesticides or antibiotics
* Better tasting, fresher
* Nutritionally superior
* Grown in an environmentally sustainable manner.
But is there scientific proof from independent, nonorganic food industry-funded studies to support these claims? Let’s investigate some of the popular organic folklore." (Alan McHughen, Kansas City Star)

Link List:

• McHughen Hangout: (2012)
• Alan McHughen Teaching a class (Video)
• Research Gate (Articles)
• Facebook
• Facebook Group (member)
• Genetic Engineering and Testing Methodologies
  Alan McHughen, ANR publication 8190 - PDF
• Biotechnology and Food - Prepared for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH 2000)
• Regulatory challenges reduce opportunities for horticultural biotechnology

Video: Next Meal: Engineering Food | The First Five Minutes

Video: Next Meal: Engineering Food | Watch QUEST Online | KQED Video:


This is a log of the first five minutes of the Qwest produced Next Meal:  Engineering Food, a 26 minute report (see above video) that was re-scheduled to broadcast on the PBS Seattle station KCTS at the end of the 2013 Washington State election. This post was created for the article "Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject GMO Labeling Initiative?" to determine if the National Science Foundation funded program is a balanced journalism piece or a biotech infomercial.  

NOTE: This is a work in progress and will be up updated over the next couple of days. 

I am seeking individuals to log 2-5 minute sections of this report. If you want to help log, please post what you are doing in the comments so we don't have people duplicating efforts. Post your log in comments.


00:00-00:19 - Quest:  The Science of Sustainability Intro Screen
00:20-00:51 - Sponsors: The National Science Foundation (two-year, $2.5 million grant), The Follis Family Fund; Mary Van Voorhees Fund; S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation; The David B. Gold Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Vadasz Family Foundation; Wyncote Foundation; Amgen Foundation; and the members of KQED.

00:52-01:16 - Video: Host: Simran Sethi (Photo) introduces Next Meal in a corn field. Sound: The business of growing foods has always been tough. Food scarcity around the world is a reality


01:17-01:33 - Video; B-Roll Tractor with hay, little sorghum embryos being plucked out of the immature seeds in lab (Photo), rice in lab, scientist in lab Sound: Voice over
01:33-01:39 - Jump Cut To Simran Sethi  in Corn Field
01:40-01:49 - Title Screen: Next Meal Engineering Food Video: Chemical Farm Field Sound: helicopter, organ music
01:50-01:53 - Video: Santa Cruz, California Board Walk. View From water Sound: helicopter, music, sea gulls, Prop 37 marchers

Tom Llewellyn, a volunteer with the Proposition 37 campaign, chants at a rally in Santa Cruz on Nov. 4, 2012, two days before the election. Prop 37 lost with 49 percent of the vote. Credit: Gabriela Quirós, KQED

01:54-02:32 - Video: Prop 37 supporters with signs walking in street (Photo), at rally, fishy corn car Sound: People Chanting "It is our right to know" Rally Speaker: "Our citizen's have the opportunity to be the first citizens in the United States to have the options as to whether or not to eat GMO foods. And I am very excited about this."

02:33-02:41 - Video: Talking Head, Tarah Locke, GMO Free Santa Cruz (Photo) on the street "It is about citizen's against chemical and junk food corporations" (More)
02:42-02:49 - Prop 37 TV Ad: "Monsanto & Dow Shouldn't Be Able To Hide That They Are Genetically Engineering Our Food..."
02:50-02:51 - Voice Over Prop 37 TV Ad: "What I didn't like about it....

02:52-03:00 - Video: Talking Head, Philip Bowles, Alfalfa Grower Bowles Farming Co. (Photo) (Point: Prop 37 Supporters wanted to stop GMO Food) Video Background: Hay Barn
03:07-03:33 - No On 37 TV Ad (Voice Over: Prop 37 did not win, but....)
03:34-03:40 - Video: Fishy Corn Car, Prop 37 supporters walking on sidewalk
03:39-03:50 - Video: Experimental Corn Field Voice Over: We have been "tinkering" with the growing of food for thousands of years.

03:54-04:10 - Video: Talking Head Eduardo Bluwald, Molecular Biologist University of California, Davis (Photo) “The ancestors of tomatoes were the size of my thumb and they tasted very bad,” said Eduardo Blumwald, “And breeding gave us what we have right now.”
04:11-04:20 - Video: Close-up of "Classic Breeding"

04:25-04:37 - Video: Talking Head Peggy Lemauz, Plant Biologist University of California, Berkeley (Photo Credit: Arwen Curry, KQED) “Classical plant breeding involves taking the female eggs from one plant and bringing them together with the male parts of another plant,” said Peggy Lemaux, plant biologist at the University of California at Berkeley. “And then all that genetic information gets mixed up. Half of the information in the progeny – or children – of that cross comes from the mother and half comes from the father. And it just all gets mixed up.”
04:38-04:58 - Video: Farmer opening seed bags in field, papaya sliced down the middle showing seeds Voice Over: Since Monsanto introduced GMO foods in the 90's.... How safe are GMO Foods? Do they harm the environment? How badly do we need them?
04:59-05:03 - Video: Farmers pouring seeds into yellow bins Voice Over: It was a huge blunder how this technology was rolled out...

05:04-05:21 - Video: Talking Head Philip Bowles, Alfalfa Grower Bowles Farming Co. (Point:  We want to trust our food.)

05:22-05:28 - Hugh Grant CEO, Monsanto Co at the 2010 Business Social Responsibility Conference in New York (Point: It is because GMO were new...it brought controversy with it.)

During the first 5+ minutes of the Quest produced "Next Meal:  Engineering Food", a 26 minute report that was re-scheduled to broadcast on the PBS Seattle station KCTS at the end of the 2013 Washington State election, Tarah Locke, the GMO Free Santa Cruz organizer, was given eight seconds on the 2012 National Science Foundation funded program during which five biotech supporter clips were featured. 

As the log highlights, thirty one seconds were devoted to "GMO Skeptics" in the first five minutes of the program that swayed Washington State voters to vote against knowing what is in their food. 

Is the Next Meal objective journalist or a biotech infomercial?
Did the re-scheduled program play a major role in defeating Initiative 522? 
More information: about.me/nextmeal

Why do a shot list of the Next Meal program?

1. Compute the time given to both sides: GMO Skeptics .31 seconds: Interview (.08) , TV Ad (.07), B-Roll (.16)...Rally: .36 seconds
2. See who was interviewed and what their background? 
3. How were GMO Skeptics featured? One
4. How were GMO Supporters featured? Four (Farmer Philip Bowles twice)
5. To determine how music and voice overs were used to transition from one segment to another.
6. To evaluate the attempt to sway emotional opinions
7. Is the program biased?
8. It the program follow the journalism code of ethics and standard practices or is it a biotech infomercial? 
9. It supports the article "Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject #GMO Labeling Initiative?" that the Next Meal is biased toward biotech and the efforts to stop GMO labeling campaigns.

The Next Meal aired on KCTS Seattle Wednesday Oct. 30th 7:30pm and 11 pm,  

Monday night Nov. 4th, Tuesday night Nov. 5th.

Next Meal: Engineering Food Survey

In this half-hour special, QUEST Northern California explores genetically engineered crops in the wake of Proposition 37, the 2012 ballot initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled in California.

1. Is the "Next Meal" a journalistic piece that explores the science behind genetic engineering while including multiple perspectives on the issue? 
2.  What are the multiple perspectives "Next Meal" delves into regarding GMO food and the impact it has on the environment, animals, farmers, children and people? 
3. Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks? 
4. What are the risks of GMO foods that are explained in "Next Meal"? 
5. What does the future hold for research and regulations such as labeling? 
6. Do you believe that the viewpoint of farmers who grow GM crops were evenly represented?
7. Do you believe that people with no background in the GMO issue would have a positive or negative view of Bio-Technology after watching this informational report? 
8. If the "Next Meal" was shown days, hours before the end of an election (like in WA), do you believe the 30-minute program would persuade public opinion to vote in favor or against GMO food labeling? 
9. As defined on Wikipeda, did "Next Meal" follow Journalism ethics and standards of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability? If your answer is "no", please elaborate.

 Please post your answers in the comments below.

Notes: Write or call Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, at 703-739-5290.

Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association and Governor Jay Inslee

No on I-522 money flooding in from out of state - Spin Control - Spokesman.com - June 13, 2013:



“The biotech industry in Washington has enormous potential,” said Clay Siegall, President and CEO of Seattle Genetics, “Jay was a recognized leader on this issue in Congress because he understands this industry. With the right kind of leadership and the right kind of policies, Washington can become an important international hub for research and development, manufacturing and sales of these innovative new medicines and products. Jay will provide that leadership as governor.”

Is Governor Inslee undecided about I-522 and labeling genetically engineered foods? (KURW Oct. 9)

"The No on I-522 campaign was formed by the Washington Farm Bureau, which has contributed “in-kind” contributions of $1,610 for staff and meeting time. Until last month, all of the campaign’s contributions were in-kind, from the farm bureau and other northwest organizations like the Spokane-based Far West Agribusiness Association and the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association of Seattle." (The Spokesman-Review)

Chris Rivera, Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association President and CEO:

“The long-term vision for the biotechnology industry is to heal, feed and fuel the world, and the only way we’re going to be able to take care of nine billion people by 2050 is through biology and biotechnology.”

Biotechnology Agriculture 

Genetically modified organisms are increasingly a topic of conversation in society, the media and the internet.  The many questions and answers are often charged with a lot of emotion ranging from optimism and excitement to skepticism and even fear. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GMO crops on today’s market, but acknowledges that we haven’t always done the best job communicating about them. GMO Answers was created to answer your questions about how food is grown and to engage in a conversation. They invite people to “Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers.” (WWBA - Public Policies)

The WWBA supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement (TPP): Protect biotech in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement talks The U.S. should strengthen intellectual-property protection for biotech companies in negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, writes guest columnists Matt Morrison and Chris Rivera. (Seattle Times)

October 25:              GOVERNOR'S LIFE SCIENCE SUMMIT & ANNUAL MEETING 

---------------------------
Maris Abelson (Facebook Post)

Gov. Inslee cosponsored bills on GM food labeling while he was in Congress. Why won't he support a labeling initiative in his own state?

Inslee co-sponsored Kucinich's 
H.R.2916 - Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act 108th Congress (2003-2004): 

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/2916/cosponsors

and the previous one:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4814/cosponsors

Next Meal: Engineering Food

In this half-hour special, QUEST Northern California explores genetically engineered crops in the wake of Proposition 37, the 2012 ballot initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled in California. Prop 37 lost, but some 6 million Californians voted in favor of labeling, signaling that many aren't completely comfortable with genetically engineered food.

Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks?
Funded by The National Science Foundation
Next Meal: Engineering Food explores how genetically engineered crops are made, their pros and cons, and what the future holds for research and regulations such as labeling.

PR push by ag and biotech industries has a secret weapon: Moms : Business

Betsie Estes is a mother of two young kids who lives in suburban Chicago.

She’s also public relations gold.

Last week, Estes was in the audience at an annual biotechnology industry conference in Chicago, attended by the industry’s power players, Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., and its competitors, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, among them.

After the gathering, Estes jotted a few thoughts on her blog. (Twitter: @FieldMomBetsie, Super Suburbs)

“There’s a pervasive thought that the people who are anti-GMO are operating from a purely altruistic place,” she wrote. “But make no mistake, just as there is big money in biotech, there is big money in opposing the technology. Entire brands, both corporate and personal, have been developed around the concept that GM foods are bad.”

That’s the kind of message the industry wants to hear — that they’re not the bad guys — and it’s the Betsie Esteses of the “momosphere” who are, increasingly, being invited to convey it.

“Moms are really important because they’re the most influential consumers in the country,” said David Wescott, director of digital strategy with the public relations firm, APCO Worldwide. “They’re increasingly finding their own peers to be the most credible sources of information.”

So, what does an industry do when it wants to nudge public opinion in its favor? Find moms — preferably with blogs. (Facebook: Super Suburbs - Updated March 20, 2013)

Read More
PR push by ag and biotech industries has a secret weapon: Moms : Business

What are GMOs & Why Do Farmers Plant GMO Crops?

Why do farmers love herbicides? What would take hundreds of man hours to weed can be done in an hour or two.

I wasn’t sure I would want to tackle GMOs with a post, but another blogger who’s doing the A to Z Challenge (Sydney Katt of authorSydneyKatt.com) said she didn’t know much about agriculture and would appreciate knowing more.

My (Pro-BioTech) View on GMOs

I have worked directly with people who invented some of the biotech traits on the market. Knowing their scientific genius (and I don’t use that word lightly at all) and the kind of people they are (truly value family, farm, health, etc and having seen the extensive amount of testing involved in the products — we have all sorts of scientists engaged on health, environment, etc. It is amazing to me how much we invest on this kind of testing and I love showcasing it for others. All of that said, I don’t necessarily think that GMOs are a silver bullet for agriculture, however, I think a lot of people who haven’t taken time to really learn about them or even worse, some who have an agenda against them are prolific in publishing misinformation on the internet. So if I don’t speak my mind, from a point of some first-hand knowledge, how can I expect others to?

Read More
What are GMOs & Why Do Farmers Plant GMO Crops?

Whole Foods says it will require labels on genetically modified ingredients : Business

Whole Foods says it will require labels on genetically modified ingredients : Business

Monsanto referred questions Friday to the Food Marketing Institute, an industry trade group.

“If FDA wants to mandate this, we’d support it,” said Heather Garlich, an institute spokeswoman. “We don’t want a patchwork of laws.”

The biotechnology industry’s leading trade group, BIO, of which Monsanto is a member, echoed that position.

“If Whole Foods chooses to voluntarily label these products as GM for the consumers who shop at their store, that’s their choice — as long as those labels do not imply that those products are somehow unsafe or less healthy,” said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman, in an email Friday. “That would be scientifically inaccurate, to say the least, but certainly false and misleading.”

The biotechnology and food industries have long held that labeling would scare consumers away from genetically modified products, which have not been linked to any food safety or health issues. The American Medical Association, for one, has said there is no scientific justification for labeling genetically modified foods.

“Anti-technology activists and organic food companies are using labeling efforts as a step toward reducing GE (genetically engineered) technology,” said Batra, the biotech trade group spokeswoman. “Certainly we are concerned because this is a strategy that takes advantage of consumers by making them fearful of a technology that has enormous economic and environmental benefits.”

AllAboutFeed - Wheat growers oppose mandatory GM labelling

AllAboutFeed - Wheat growers oppose mandatory GM labelling

“This initiative is full of contradictory rules,” said WAWG Past President and State Legislation committee chairman, Eric Maier. “A food made of genetically modified ingredients would require labeling when sold in grocery stores, but not in restaurants or delis. That just doesn’t make sense.”(1) Maier grows wheat near Ritzville, Wash., the heart of dryland wheat country. Maier also believes the exemption for alcohol, but not other drinks, would mislead consumers.(2) The proposed mandatory labeling law will not provide any useful information, and US policy on food labeling is that it should provide meaningful information about health or safety.

According to the association  there is no genetically modified wheat in commercial production in Washington State or elsewhere in the United States. The industry is pursuing genetic modification to grow more and better wheat with less impact on the environment, such as reducing chemical usage. Washington State University researchers are also looking for ways to enhance wheat through genetic modification to allow those with wheat intolerance or celiac disease to eat wheat.

(1) Prop. 37 is full of absurd, politically motivated exemptions that make no sense. It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow’s milk. Dairy products, eggs, meat and poultry are all exempt. Fruit juice requires a label, but alcohol made with some of the same GE ingredients is exempt. Food sold in a grocery store requires a label, but the same food sold in a restaurant is exempt.  (NoONProp37)

FrankenM&Ms! Forget Chocolate, I Want A Whole GMO Valentine's Day Meal

FrankenM&Ms! Forget Chocolate, I Want A Whole GMO Valentine's Day Meal

Article Comment:

I think this anti-GMO thing is turning into a real mental disorder. I just read something where they said you can't get rid of calories from gmo foods by exercising.

And I just read your link to an article you have written about GMOs called 'The anti-GMO gang that couldn’t label straight' in which you said :-

So, what is it? They can’t keep their motives straight. Do they want a simple label or do they want GMOs banned? Its obvious it’s the latter, but they still can’t keep chanting the it’s just a labelmantra.

The anti-GMO crowd has to get real. They have to stick to one message and not be so weasly in their intentions. The bottom line is they want GMO foods banned because they think they are poison.  They should come clean that they are organic advocates that hate any kind of modern progress in regards to farming. They have to come clean that what they perceive as the dangers of GMOs have never been proven, despite the bogus science they believe.

No, the problem is that people like you and Hank for some bizarre reason, can only seem to think in black and white terms about this GMO topic and are incapable of understanding or seeing that there a many shades of grey, that cover many different perspectives about the many different types of GMOs. You can't just lump together everyone who would like to see a label on GMO foods as being all belonging to the same 'anti-science' crowd who just wants GMOs banned because they think they are poison.
I would like to see GMO food labelling and then I would still like to buy most of the GMO foods on sale. I agree with Hank that genetically modified foods have enormous potential for humanity and for feeding the poor in the World. I just am not yet sure about the long term safety of  Bt GMOs for example, which contain Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) bacteria or their cry toxins, in every mouthful of Bt GMO food that we eat, specifically incorporated genetically into the crop to cause intestinal damage to the targeted bugs that also eat these foods, especially because the Bt toxins in the food can't be washed off like the Bt  'organic' sprays can.

As far as I'm aware, there are no respectable, long term (longer than 90 or 120 days) scientific studies generally available yet,  showing  harmless effects of these  Bt GMOs  cry toxins, leptins and roundup tolerant GMOs upon mammals and their guts and especially their internal organs and embryos. Until they are made generally available for the public to read and reassure ourselves that there is nothing to worry about, I personally feel entitled to be able to choose not to eat  GMO foods and without GMO labelling I am obviously unable to make this choice.

The scientific studies that have shown rats getting fatter eating GMOs  were being fed Bt GMO foods, not any of the thousands of other GM foods that don't contain Bt bacteria, cry  toxins, leptin or roundup tolerance genes, that I'm not really worried about.  I will happily eat a drought resistant, apple sized, blue strawberry even covered in GM chocolate for Valentine's day, if it is ever were genetically modified and made publicly available (not just for the Hollywood royalty) but I would still want to see a GMO label on it, even though in that particular case it would obviously be  a GMO :)

—

Make love not war

Helen Barratt | 02/12/13 | 17:02 PM

• Reply to This »
• Link

Washington wheat growers oppose GMO label initiative | capitalpress.com

Washington wheat growers oppose GMO label initiative | capitalpress.com

Though genetically modified wheat is not yet commercially available, the Washington Association of Wheat Growers on Feb. 11 came out against an initiative that would mandate labeling of food made with GMO ingredients.

Eric Maier, a Ritzville, Wash., wheat farmer and past president of WAWG, said the impact of Initiative 522 on wheat farmers would be negligible at this point, since a genetically modified wheat variety is still likely seven to 10 years away from commercial cultivation.

The association opposes the initiative in its entirety.

"It's just bad policy," Maier said.

According to the association, foods produced through genetic modification are indistinguishable from foods produced through traditional means, and requiring mandatory labeling misleads consumers by falsely implying differences where none exist.

In an association release, Maier said the initiative is full of contradictions. For example, a food made of genetically modified ingredients would require labeling when sold in grocery stores, but not in restaurants.
WAWG also accuses I-522 supporters of trying to mislead the public by claiming the initiative will avoid export market disruption. The association says the initiative has nothing to do with export markets, but is part of an effort to create an "unnecessary and expensive regulatory system that will ultimately hit Washington consumers in the pocketbook."

Wheat leader ramps up image campaign

Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:00 AM 

Farms will face challenges in the future

By Eric Maier,
President,
Washington Association of Wheat Growers | Posted: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:00 am 
 
RITZVILLE - I am writing you today about a challenge ahead of farming communities throughout Eastern Washington. The challenge is real and it affects more than those involved in advocacy groups and organizations. Our challenge is apathy and ignorance.

Not just apathy within our own communities and governments, but apathy outside our circles. As farmers, we have been silent about the obstacles we've overcome and the importance of our work. I used to think it was "someone else's job" to tell the story of farm life and agriculture.

My job was to sit on the tractor and to harvest the best crop possible. It was up to some staffer I didn't know to advocate for me. Well, even the greatest staffer is only one voice. I am now seeing first-hand the consequences of a silent farming community.

The mission of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers is to work for solutions to problems of the farm, the farm home and rural community using united, organized action to represent, protect and advance the social, economic and educational interests of wheat farmers of Washington State.

In today's world of instant media and information, this protection requires us to share the stories of our farm families. I encourage all of you to look at advocacy as a vital tool necessary for our farms' survival.

Canada catching on to blessings of biotech crops

Canada catching on to blessings of biotech crops | Government content from Western Farm Press

Agriculture is one of the great engines of the Canadian economy–and much of our success in recent years comes from advances in technology that allow us to grow more food on less land.

On our farm in Saskatchewan, we’ve grown GM canola for almost 10 years. There are obvious advantages for us on the farm, but this technology benefits all Canadians. Boosting our productivity keeps food prices down and helps protect the environment.

Anti-biotech activists seek to turn back the clock on this progress. They fail to see the science behind the benefits. They want warning labels to demonize ordinary products, reduce consumer confidence, and hurt an entire industry, even as food and health organizations around the world have endorsed the adoption of GM crops.

For me, the issue is personal. I have two young daughters, and we feed them what we grow on the farm. That includes food with GM ingredients. As a parent, I’m very comfortable feeding my children food produced from GM crops.  But I’m inundated with anti-biotech propaganda while shopping at the grocery store. I’m irritated by irrational labeling… like “GM Free” stickers on products that don’t even have a GM counterpart. Thanks for the “warning!” Parents have enough to worry about these days when feeding our families, we don’t need more unsubstantiated fear tactics.

Farmers feel label fatigue | Washington Friends of Farms & Forests

Farmers feel label fatigue | Washington Friends of Farms & Forests

Farmers feel label fatigue

Washington Friends

News

Capital press

Editorial
Backers of a Washington state initiative that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods now say they’re doing it to protect the state’s farm exports. Trouble is, farmers aren’t buying it and say they don’t need the protection.

Initiative 522 would require food and seeds produced through genetic engineering and sold in Washington to be labeled effective July 1, 2015.

The Washington State Farm Bureau, Washington Friends of Farms and Forests and Northwest Food Processors all oppose the initiative.

Supporters have delivered about 350,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. An initiative requires 241,153 valid signatures from registered voters to be certified and sent to the Legislature. If the Legislature doesn’t act on the measure, it will go on November’s general election ballot.

It’s one of 30 efforts in various states across the country.

A similar measure that was rejected by California voters in November. A pair of bills introduced in last spring’s Washington Legislature never cleared the first committee of referral.

Along with the usual arguments, backers of Initiative 522 say they’re looking out for the state’s farm economy.
Ellen Gray, whose Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network is part of the coalition behind the petition drive, said that 49 countries have restrictions on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. She said labels would protect the state’s agricultural export market.

“This isn’t about whether GMOs are good or bad, it’s about being in an international marketplace,” she said.
Washington farmers would be hard pressed to find where the lack of such a mandate has harmed their ability to sell their goods on the international market.

John Stuhlmiller, the Farm Bureau’s director of government relations, points out that Washington is the third-largest exporter of foodstuffs in the United States. Those exports are worth $15 billion a year.

Nearly 90 percent of Washington’s annual wheat harvest is already bound for the export market, and demand increases each year. An increasing amount of Washington’s hay, fruit and dairy output is going overseas.

Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and  Forests, said a GMO labeling law would actually hurt farmers. It would increase costs for producers and consumers by creating separate labeling, packaging and inventories for Washington.

We are always skeptical when any political movement claims to be motivated by the best interests of a group whose business they seek to regulate. Farmers are smart enough to figure out whether Initiative 522 will help them or hurt them. So far, they’re not buying it.

http://www.capitalpress.com/subscribers/jb-gmo-label-edit-011813

Syngenta - Social Media on the Farm

Anthony Transou shares how Syngenta uses social media to connect with growers and to help farmers share their story with consumers.

Video: How to control resistant weeds in your field | Herbicides content from Farm Industry News

Video: How to control resistant weeds in your field | Herbicides content from Farm Industry News

Herbicide-resistant weeds have cropped up across the Midwest. Gordon Vail, Sygenta’s corn herbicide technical asset lead, talks every day to growers about problems with weed resistance. He offers his recommendations for handling resistant weeds in cornfields.

No on Prop. 37 » Get the Facts

No on Prop. 37 » Get the Facts

Get the Facts

Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients. Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits. That’s why Prop 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.
Download this fact sheet [PDF]

PROP 37 CONFLICTS WITH SCIENCE

Biotechnology, also called genetic engineering (GE), has been used for nearly two decades to grow varieties of corn, soybeans and other crops that resist diseases and insects and require fewer pesticides. Thousands of common foods are made with ingredients from biotech crops. Prop 37 bans these perfectly safe foods only in California unless they’re specially relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients.

PROP 37 IS FULL OF SPECIAL-INTEREST LOOPHOLES AND EXEMPTIONS

Prop. 37 is full of absurd, politically motivated exemptions that make no sense. It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow’s milk. Dairy products, eggs, meat and poultry are all exempt. Fruit juice requires a label, but alcohol made with some of the same GE ingredients is exempt. Food sold in a grocery store requires a label, but the same food sold in a restaurant is exempt.  Food imported from China and other foreign countries are exempt if sellers simply claim their products are “GE free”. Unscrupulous foreign companies can game the system.

PROP 37 MEANS MORE BUREAUCRACY AND TAXPAYER COSTS

Prop 37 forces state bureaucrats to administer its complex requirements by monitoring tens of thousands of food labels at tens of thousands of grocery stores, retail outlets, farms and food companies. In fact, it sets no limit on how many millions would be spent on bureaucracy, red tape and lawsuits.  It’s a blank check… paid by taxpayers.

PROP 37 AUTHORIZES SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS

Prop 37 was written by a trial lawyer to benefit trial lawyers. Its primary sponsor is a trial lawyer whose firm and organization have made more than $3 million suing under the terms of another proposition he helped write.  Prop 37 creates a whole new class of “headhunter lawsuits,” allowing lawyers to sue family farmers and grocers without any proof of harm. It subjects farmers, grocers and food companies to huge litigation costs and lawyer payouts.

PROP 37 MEANS HIGHER FOOD COSTS

Prop 37 forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution, recordkeeping and other bureaucratic operations that will cost billions of dollars to implement.  Or, companies will be forced to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell food in California.  Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year – a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it.