World Grain - October 2014 - 62

FEATURE: GMO DEBATE GROWS AS CROP AREA RISES

the Organic Trade Association.
"Avoiding GMO's, for themselves or
their children, is an increasingly important reason why parents choose organic
food," the OTA said in its U.S. Families'
Organic Attitudes and Beliefs 2014
Tracking Study, which surveyed more
than 1,200 households with at least
one child under the age of 18. "Almost
25% of parents buying organic said that
wanting to steer clear of genetically
modified foods is now one of their top
reasons for selecting organic, the most
in the four years the survey has been
taken, and up significantly from 16%
who said the same in 2013. Of the 15
reasons for buying organic that parents
were asked to rate, not buying GMO's
showed the biggest jump by far from attitudes a year ago."
Sales of organic products were a record $35.1 billion in 2013, up 12% from
2012, according to the OTA.
"Parents have become more informed
about the benefits of organic, and they
have also become more aware of the
questions surrounding GMO's," said
Laura Batcha, executive director and
chief executive officer of the OTA. The
OTA survey indicated 73% of parents
knew what GMO stands for whether
they buy organic or not. The organization, which is officially opposed to
GMO's, noted all organic products are
GMO free but not all GMO-free items
are organic.
At the same time, results from the
United Soybean Board's (USB) 21st
annual Consumer Attitudes about
Nutrition survey released last week
indicated only 2% of consumers cited
GMO's as a barrier to eating foods or
beverages, while 57% characterized the
role of biotechnology as positive or had
no opinion. The survey showed 71%
of consumers believed GMO products
should be labeled, up 10% from last
year's survey.
"Although most consumers say they
favor GMO labeling when asked specifically, this study also demonstrates
that GMO's are really not a top of
mind concern for the majority of con62

sumers," said Steve Poole, USB director of nutrition and public relations.
"For example, when asked which food
and nutrition trends they are paying
attention to, only 4% of consumers
mention GMO's. We also know from
other USB research that as consumers
learn more about the specific benefits
of biotechnology, particularly any
health benefits, their perceptions become more positive."
STATE LABELING
EFFORTS CHALLENGED
As of mid-year, three U.S. states -
Connecticut, Maine and Vermont - had
GMO labeling requirements of various
sorts signed into law. Labeling initiatives were under way in more than 20
states, but in general, state initiatives
have been costly and failed to garner
voter approval, as in California and
Washington the past two years.
While activist groups are pushing
GMO labeling efforts in more states
than ever, much of the focus has been
on the West coast and the Northeast,
especially Vermont, which moved
to the forefront in part because of its
unilateral effort to require GMO labeling. The Vermont law, which is set
to go into effect July 1, 2016, already
has been challenged in court by the
Grocery Manufacturers Association
and others. Labeling laws in Maine
and Connecticut don't go into effect
until a sufficient number of surrounding states have similar laws, thus
avoiding a conflict with federal interstate commerce requirements.
In the West, Oregon has been a hotbed
of GMO activity. Oregon governor John
Kitzhaber last fall directed the state's
agriculture department to map all GMO
fields across the state so buffer zones
could be established to protect regular
crops from cross pollinating with GMO
crops. While some areas of the state have
voluntary mapping efforts, and many
farmers have agreed to "peacefully coexist," failed efforts in other parts of
Oregon led to the governor's directive
last fall. The effort, according to a report

in the Capital Press, was prompted by
several instances of genetic contamination that made non-bioengineered crops
unusable for export.
While some farmers and seed companies participate in the GMO field
mapping, others do not because of
competitive reasons or fear of crop
sabotage. The discovery of some bioengineered wheat in an Oregon field
last year still has not been resolved, but
there were some early suggestions it
may have been a case of sabotage by an
anti-GMO group.
The Oregon GMO Right to Know
petition committee has spent about
$630,000 the past two months to collect
enough signatures for a November ballot initiative, according to a report in the
Capital Press.
More than 60 countries have some
type of GMO labeling requirements,
including Australia, Russia, China,
India, Japan, Brazil and the European
Union. Notable exceptions include
most of Africa, Argentina, Mexico,
Canada and the United States. Fewer
than five countries ban imports or production of GMO products.
GMO products imported by countries that require GMO labeling from
countries that don't require labeling
generally carry GMO labels in the importing countries.
"Other countries have adopted systems for approving biotech traits, but
these decisions are subject to differing regulations or are overtly political,
which can result in lengthy delays between approvals in importing and exporting countries," American Soybean
Association (ASA) treasurer Richard
Wilkins told the Senate Committee
on Finance in testimony concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership in June. "This is a concern
because, until an importer approves a
new trait, even a trace amount of that
trait detected in a cargo can result
in its rejection and major losses for
the shipper."
The ASA supports a global low level
October 2014 / World Grain / www.World-Grain.com

http://www.World-Grain.com

World Grain - October 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of World Grain - October 2014