Oser Communications Group

8 GENERAL NEWS GMO Labeling Continued from PAGE 1 under consideration in New York City made it to the City Assembly's agenda but was eventually defeated in committee. Proponents of the law have vowed to continue fighting until they get the law passed. The U.S. Senate has also mulled federal GMO labeling legislation, but has thus far yet to pass a bill. In May 2013, the Senate voted overwhelmingly against an amendment to the farm bill that would have required national GMO labeling. For those who are fighting in favor of GMO labeling requirements, the issue is largely one of transparency. Many consumers argue that the U.S. government requires companies to label thousands of ingredients when they are included in foods they sell in this country. As such, these individuals argue that they should similarly have the right to know when they are eating items that have been genetically modified. Opponents of mandatory GMO labeling argue that there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods pose a threat to the health of consumers. By marking these Trans Fats Continued from PAGE 1 companies currently using these fats in their products to reformulate their ingredients lists if they are to continue selling the foods in this country. For many advocates of healthy eating, the move to ban PHOs is a welcome one that they hope will promote public health in this country. Non-profit community health organization Trust for America, for example, issued a response immediately after the FDA's announcement praising the agency for its decision. "[Trust for America] applauds the FDA for taking the steps to eliminate dangerous and deadly artificial trans fat from the nation's diet," the statement read. "Removing artificial trans fat from foods is a vital measure in the fight against heart disease and spiraling health- GOURMET NEWS JANUARY 2014 www.gourmetnews.com foods with a special label, it serves to feed into an undeserved culture of fear surrounding these products. In addition, some have argued that far from increasing consumer choice, GMO labels could in fact actually limit consumer choice by compelling food companies to eliminate GMOs from their products altogether. This would in effect, take away the consumer's right to purchase these items if he or she wishes to do so. Currently, just two states have laws mandating the labeling of GMOs in foods sold within their borders: Maine and Connecticut. Instead of putting the issue into voters' hands, both of these states passed GMO labeling laws through their state legislatures. However, because of the tremendous cost that these laws would place on food companies, they have yet to be implemented. The laws state that they will not be enacted until at least four other Northeastern states with a combined population of 20 million pass similar GMO labeling laws of their own. Despite the failure to pass Washington's initiative 522 and California's Prop 37, several states and municipalities are already hard at work developing their own pieces of GMO-related legislation. In December, on the Big Island of Hawaii, The Hawaii County Council voted to ban biotech companies from experimenting with GMO crops and seeds there. Companies have long been using the Hawaiian Islands as a testing ground for new genetically modified plants. The anti-GMO movement has recently reached a crescendo in Hawaii, and experts expect the state to be a major battleground in upcoming battles over the issue. In Los Angeles, Calif., the city is currently considering banning the sale and cultivation of all GMOs within the municipal area. In October, two Los Angeles City Council members introduced a measure to ban the sale and distribution of all genetically modified seeds and plants in the city, a move designed to protect local farms and gardens from being contaminated by encroaching GMOs. If the proposal passes, the city will become the largest one in the country to completely eliminate GMOs within its boundaries. Still, the biggest upcoming battleground state in the fight over GMOs and GMO labeling in the wake of Washington's and California's recent battles is likely to be the one nestled between the two: Oregon. Immediately following the defeat of initiative 522 in Washington, supporters of GMO labeling in Oregon announced their intention to get a similar measure put on ballots in their state in time for the upcoming 2014 general election. If the intense battles in Washington and California are any indication, the fight over a similar law just one state away is likely to be even more bruising. Regardless of whatever success proponents of mandatory GMO labeling have in Oregon, this state will certainly not be the last to tackle the issue. There are already preliminary movements underway in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to consider similar pieces of legislation. The top five most common GMO crops cultivated in the United States are corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets. However, there is a burgeoning collection of additional plant foods that are becoming available in GMO form, including radicchio, summer squash, potatoes, tomatoes, rice, soybeans and more. Genetically modified salmon has also recently been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval, and it could be showing up on dinner plates soon. GN care costs." However, not everyone in the country is supportive of the FDA proposal. John Moore, a food and drug attorney with the law firm Venable LLP states that he is hearing arguments both for and against the FDA proposal from the companies he represents. "We have clients on both sides of the issue," he said. "We have clients that do use PHOs and are wondering what they are going to have to do with the ban should it happen, and we have other clients that have reformulated already and they would enjoy the competitive advantage." Speaking specifically about the arguments he hears from clients who are opposed to banning PHOs, Moore said, "This is a bit unprecedented I think for the FDA to take this sort of action. Here we have something that is just plain not good for you. I think the arguments are that con- sumers ought to have free choice to consume the products they want to. Some products will never be the same again." If the FDA finalizes the decision to ban PHOs, the impact on some food companies could be severe, and a number of food products that U.S. consumers have come to love may never be the same. For a small business, reformulating an entire product line to remove the banned substance could be an insurmountable task. In addition, there are several foods, including margarine and canned frostings that food scientists have yet to determine how they can be made without PHOs. If the products can not be reformulated, there is a small chance that they could be removed from the market entirely. Currently, the FDA's decision to ban PHOs is still in its initial consideration phase, as the agency waits to get feedback from the food industry and the public at large. The 60-day comment period ends on January 7. Any person who would like to offer the FDA her or his opinion on whether or not the ban should be enacted and how such an action could best be accomplished is urged to visit www.regulations.gov to submit their written comments. "I would definitely take advantage of this comment period to put thoughts together that are not just opinion but also include data and scientific arguments," said Moore. "[The food] industry should definitely comment on industry difficulty in reformulating some of these products." In addition, if there is enough support for doing so, the FDA may be compelled to extend the comment period. Some food manufacturers are already pushing the agency to do just that, arguing that they are not being given enough time to compile their scientific arguments against the ban and that the holiday season is hampering their efforts as well. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Institute of Food Technologists were among the earliest voices to request a two-month extension of the comment period. Regardless of how soon the FDA comment period ends, Moore feels that completely banning PHOs will be a relatively long process that is likely to occur over several years time. In the end, he anticipates that some foods will be permitted to contain at least a modicum of trans fats. "I think that there will be some allowances for use of PHOs in applications where it's simply impossible to reformulate, but I think that stronger labeling … could be required. I think it will be few years until it occurs," he said. GN Cheese Guild their products. The Massachusetts Cheese Guild's website is now live and contains a wealth of information about the Guild, its artisans, how and where to buy Massachusetts cheeses, who is appearing at what regional markets, and how to cook with Massachusetts cheeses. Massachusetts cheesemakers produce almost every type of cheese, from alpine to blue, from Nubian goat to Ayrshire cow, from fresh and soft to cave-aged and hard. In order to showcase the state's wealth of cheese offerings, Massachusetts Cheese Guild President Barbara Hanley and a 10-person Board of Directors are also actively planning a 1,000 square-foot retail cheese shop at the proposed Boston Public Market in downtown Boston. GN Continued from PAGE 4 and journalists. Finally, enthusiast members may join online with a nominal annual membership fee. The Guild is funded by its members and supported by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and the Massachusetts Dairy Promotion Board. Its artisan members range in location from Topsfield to the north and Martha's Vineyard to the south, and from Somerville to the east and Williamstown to the west. See the website at www.macheeseguild.org for details on producer members and where to purchase

• Cover