MA Groups Oppose Food Labeling Bill

BOSTON - June 4, 2014 - PRLog -- Boston--A coalition of Massachusetts and national groups is voicing strong opposition to mandatory state food labeling bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature. Bills aimed at forcing food producers and farmers to label any food that may have been derived from genetically modified crops would hurt consumers, small businesses and farmers.

All the leading scientific bodies agree that genetically modified foods are no different from foods derived from conventionally bred crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and The American Medical Association are a just a few that have found these foods to be as nutritious and safe as those. The American Association for the Advancement of Science states, “Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”

Massachusetts’ consumers wishing to avoid foods derived from genetically modified crops already have that choice under the USDA National Organic Program – a federal, voluntary, marketing scheme. “We support full disclosure of ingredients and preparation methods, but such labeling efforts should be made at the federal level for consistency and uniformity. It is nearly impossible to isolate and identify those that may have used GMO’s on a state level,” said Chris Flynn, President of the Massachusetts Food Association.

“Forced labeling will result in higher food costs for Massachusetts consumers of as much as $500 per year. That’s part of the reason the New Hampshire legislature rejected it this year and our legislature should as well,” said Bill Rennie, Vice President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Rennie also noted voters in California and Washington also rejected forced labeling referendums in the last two years, demonstrating that consumers don’t want to pay more for food due to state government labeling mandates.

In addition to genetically modified crops being safe and nutritious, there are also environmental benefits. These crops require less water, less pesticide and herbicide use, and they produce much larger crop yields.

“The current anti-GMO zeal is largely based on misinformation, it is not scientifically substantiated, but rather anti-science internet gossip and well-organized fear-mongering that profits some individuals and organizations. This type of misinformation does a disservice to innovation and the future of our society and our environment,” said Dr. Albert Kausch of the College of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Rhode Island. Kausch, who has worked in the field of Plant Genetics, Agriculture and Agricultural Biotechnology for 25 years added, “The unintended consequences of these bills may be far more reaching than their authors realize.”

Coalition members that support voluntary food labeling and oppose costly, mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetically modified crops include:

• Massachusetts Food Association

• Retailers Association of Massachusetts

• Massachusetts Biotechnology Council

• Associated Industries of Massachusetts

• Massachusetts Association of Dairy Farmers

• Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance

• Grocery Manufacturers Association of America

• Biotechnology Industry Organization

For more information on the expense of unnecessary labeling and the environmental and nutritional benefits of GE products, visit www.MaFarmtoFood.org and @MAFarmtoFood