What's The Matter With Kansas - (Part 3)

Let's recap our adventures in Kansas, especially for all the new people on this list:

1. Last spring, a bill was introduced by members of a Monsanto front group that would have banned all rBGH-free labeling. Oregon PSR helped organize and facilitate a massive effort by a combined local/state/national coalition that stopped the bill.

2. Last fall, the Kansas Dept. of Agriculture proposed rules that, while not banning all labeling, would have put crippling restrictions on them. Our coalition appealed to KDA and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and the rules were never enacted.

3. Three weeks ago, we discovered that another bill had been introduced in the legislature that includes almost the exact same language as the KDA rules.

Within 24 hours of finding out about this latest bill, we re-activated our coalition, planned strategy and recruited several people to testify at the Kansas House Agriculture Committee hearing. (My e-mailed testimony is attached.)

Moreover, hundreds of people in Kansas sent messages opposing the bill to Committee members in response to our coalition's grass roots alerts.

Unfortunately, this overwhelming opposition to the bill went for naught. Two days ago, the Ag Committee (without putting the bill on the agenda) unexpectedly brought it up for a vote and passed it. It now goes to the full House for a vote.

We're doing everything possible to stop this bill. It would put Kansas's labeling rules out of whack with every other state in the country and could very well result in several regional and national companies giving up any kind of labeling informing consumers, effectively taking away our right to know. Moreover, it bans the terms "rBGH- (rBST-) Free" from labels. Since rBGH doesn't occur in nature and can't exist in cows without injections, this bill actually makes it illegal to tell the truth. Welcome to freedom of speech, rBGH-style.



Going Buggy

For most of the first week in March, I was at a conference on genetically engineered insects at North Carolina State U. in Raleigh. There were about 60 people there, mostly scientists, but also a few of us invited to represent nonprofits that have serious concerns about genetic engineering.

Since I mainly work on GE food issues, this was quite new to me, and I learned a lot. The reason most of these scientists are doing this work is to genetically engineer mosquitoes so that they don't carry malaria or dengue fever.

I have to give a lot of credit to the organizers, who went out of their way to generate a discussion with people they knew to be skeptical. I also give them kudo's for their honesty and refreshing lack of hubris. At the end of the session, they drew up a list of considerations regarding GE insects. Here are a few:

" Consider that ecological systems are complex, and that, with regard to genetically modified species, what we know about how they will affect or be affected by ecosystems pales in comparison to what we do not know."

"Consider the likelihood that genetic pest management (government) regulatory processes will become captured by the firms being regulated."

"Consider that modified genes may spread to non-target genes."

I only wish that Monsanto, Syngenta, the FDA, USDA, etc.  would also voice such honesty when it comes to GE food.

To be sure, I still have some concerns about GE insects. But I want to emphasize one point we've known from the start but haven't said enough. It's absurd for people to brand all GE food critics as anti-technology zealots who make their decisions strictly by emotion instead of science. It's just as inaccurate to categorize individuals working on GE as all money-hungry types who could care less about safety or benefitting society. There are plenty of well-intentioned people on the other side of the discussion too.



Bad Economy or Not, People Still Want Good Food

At the Food Alliance's annual conference a few days ago, I heard a presentation on consumer trends in food preferences by the Hartman Group. One of the most interesting tidbits was that the economy had only a minor effect on consumers' purchases of sustainably-produced food:

13% were buying more sustainable products

62% were buying the same amount of sustainable products

25% are buying less sustainable products

Another finding was that 75% of consumers consider sustainability when making purchases. One quote from the presentation: "As consumers learn more about risks, they aren't willing to accept the status quo." This is exactly what we've seen on the front lines of nearly 200 public presentations in the past few years.  When our audiences find out about the risks of GE foods, many of them decide to change their buying and eating habits.

Genetically engineered food is a house of cards, the foundation of which is consumer ignorance. Once consumers find out about the risks, it's all over. This is happening with rBGH right now and it will also happen with other GE food when the word gets out.

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

Become an OCA Member! Sign up below:

First Name
Last Name
Email
Email Preference	HTML EmailText Email
Phone
Street
Street 2
City
State	Select One... Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other
Zip
Country	United StatesAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBruneiBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCongDemocratic Republic of theCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicIvory CoastDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEast TimorEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceGabonGambiTheGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKoreNorthKoreSouthKuwaitKyrgyzstanLaosLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacedoniFormer Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesiFederated States ofMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and The GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbia and MontenegroSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe