AFIA joins coalition to push for federal GMO labeling solution

The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) has announced its membership in the newly formed Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF), joining a national effort to urge Congress to quickly seek a federal solution and establish standards for the safety and labeling of animal feed, petfood and human food and beverage products made with genetically modified ingredients.

test
"AFIA firmly believes there should be a federal GMO labeling solution protecting consumers by ensuring the safety of both food and feed ingredients produced through the use of modern agricultural biotechnology," said Leah Wilkinson, AFIA director of ingredients, petfood and state affairs. "If a labeling solution is not agreed upon and even a few of the pending state initiatives are successful, the feed industry's cost of doing business goes up, on-farm production costs go up, and ultimately the consumer pays the price, with no important information in hand."
The broad coalition said such a federal GMO labeling solution would:
Eliminate confusion: Remove the confusion and uncertainty of a 50-state patchwork of GMO safety and labeling laws, and affirm the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the nation's authority on the use and labeling of genetically modified feed and food ingredients.
Advance food safety: Require FDA to conduct safety reviews of all new GMO traits before they are introduced into commerce. FDA is empowered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with GMO technology.
Inform consumers: FDA will establish federal standards for companies seeking to voluntarily label their products for the absence of or presence of GMO ingredients to clearly understand their choices in the marketplace.
Provide consistency: FDA will define the term "natural" for its use on food and beverage products so human food and beverage companies and consumers have a consistent legal framework for food labels while informing consumer choice.
"With the vast majority of U.S.-produced corn and soybeans enhanced through biotechnology, U.S. feed products made with these genetically modified ingredients are deemed safe by FDA, and have been used by the industry for more than 20 years. They are beneficial to not only the industry, but to the planet and its population as a whole," said Wilkinson.
It is expected the global population will increase from 7 billion people to 9 billion people by 2050, and the world will need 70 percent more food production to meet the growing demand.
"AFIA recognizes the need for a consistent, national GMO labeling solution, but is strongly against labeling laws set by political campaigns or state and local legislatures. AFIA recommends FDA determine whether labeling is necessary as it is most in tune with our nation's animal feed and food systems," Wilkinson said. "Such a solution determined by FDA, will help the industry to safely and continuously use evolving production technology to help meet global needs."

Confusion on petfood coverage in proposal to label genetically modified foods

Advertisements for a proposal to label genetically modified foods in Washington, USA, are causing confusion over whether or not the initiative would cover petfood and meats for human consumption. The fight over the wording of the proposal comes after a measure known as Proposition 37 was defeated in California, USA, in 2012, which had similar wording and major companies funding both sides of the proposal. 
"Petfood would be covered but meat for human consumption would be exempt," said Dan Newhouse, a former state agriculture secretary, in recent commercials against I-522.
However, the I-522 measure reportedly does not mention petfood in the 2,448-word text. Though it exempts meat that has been fed or injected with genetically modified products from the labeling requirements, I-522 would require meat from a genetically modified animal to be labeled if sold in a supermarket.
The key point is that the initiative fails to define "food," said Rob Maguire, an attorney for the "No" campaign. According to Maguire, courts would look at the definition in Article 69 of state statutes, which deals with food labeling, along with the federal law and the common dictionary definition, all of which include petfood. 
"That's just false," said Knoll Lowney, attorney for the "Yes" campaign, which argues petfood is not covered. The initiative would fall under Article 70, not Article 69, so the definition would not apply, according to Lowney. Courts would look first at the initiative, which says in the introductory section that its purpose is "to ensure people are fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat was produced through genetic engineering," Lowney said.
Lowney and Maguire agree that petfood would only be required to be labeled if the state Health Department includes it in rules the agency must write if the initiative passes.
According to Lowney, a key difference is that California supporters of Proposition 37 wanted the law to cover petfood, whereas supporters of I-522 in Washington are only concerned with human food. I-522 supporters could not add specific language to exempt petfood because it cannot be changed once an initiative begins gathering signatures.

Examiner.com says genetically engineered ingredients often found in cat food

A recent article on Examiner.com discusses the amount of genetically engineered, or genetically modified, GMO, ingredients that may be found in cat foods.

The article cites Justlabelit.org, which says that GE foods are altered at a molecular level in ways that would not otherwise happen naturally, meaning the genetic makeup of plants and animals is altered using DNA molecules from other sources to create a new set of genes that exhibit specific traits. 

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration does not mandate that foods containing these GMO ingredients be labeled, though the article says that 88% of corn planted, 94% of soybeans planted and 90% of canola used in the US is GE. Unless the cat food is certified organic, corn, along with soy and canola, are the most commonly found GE ingredients in petfood, according to Examiner.com. Derivatives of corn, such as corn gluten, corn oil and corn starch, as well as derivatives of soy, including soybeans, soy protein, soy oil and soy meal, are included in many premium-label and bargain cat foods, the article says.

The article also says Susan Thixton of truthaboutpetfood.com contacted petfood manufacturers to ask if the foods contain GE ingredients. Of the responses she received, the following companies claimed that GE ingredients are not used: Answers Pet Food, The Honest Kitchen, Nature's Logic Pet Food, Nature's Variety Pet Food, Raw Health Pet Food, Red Moon Pet Food and Weruva Pet Food. The companies that said there may be a possibility of GE ingredients in the food were Iams and Blue Seal.