WolfeNotes.com

Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods Splits Membership

Motion To Reform Policy Fails By A Single Vote

The fine print reveals that Monsanto was a sponsor of the NJ Farm Bureau annual conference

Immediately after the NJ Farm Bureau dispatched with the nuisance of a cursory climate change briefing from Rutgers scientists at Tuesday’s session, they moved on to more important matters: debate on policy Resolutions.

I remained to listen in, and was surprised by what I heard: A small but vocal minority of farmers are opposed to GMO’s and openly scathingly critical of the role of Monsanto in Farm Bureau business.

I guess they feel the same way I do about corporate money in the environmental community, like WalMart and South Jersey Gas and PSE&G and the “stewardship” of commercial loggers, Dupont & Company.

Here’s what went down during a brief but heated debate.

The first Resolution put up for discussion was to change current Farm Bureau policy on “bio-engineered foods” (see page 76-77).

That embarrassing policy reads like it was written by a group of right wing paranoid farmers (UN Agenda 21!) and lawyers who feel themselves “under assault” from all quarters.

The current Farm Bureau policy attacks critics; urges farmers to fight any regulation at all costs; and recommends a PR campaign:

Bio-engineered foods are now under assault from criticism directed at the consumer health effects, environmental impacts and ethics of using this technology. Opposition is strongest in Europe and is now expanding to both developed and developing countries around the world. Critics have seized upon the public relations tool of stigmatizing the food supply among consumers through the news media, which in turn has caused some major food processors and food retailers to run scared. Farmers face the risk of market disruption and interruption of trade opportunities and those disruptions are increasing as countries try to use GMO bans as a trade barrier tool.

Several California counties have passed regulations banning the planting and use of GMO crops there. It is important that sound science be used in establishing such regulations and that they be done as part of a national policy and not on a state or regional level.

Farmers are vulnerable to economic harm if the debate over bio-engineered products is won by those who have hidden agendas. Europeans seeking advantage in blocking food imports and anti-technology alarmists will overwhelm the political, regulatory and consumer markets with scare tactics unless their commentaries are confronted. […]

There are currently two bills in the New Jersey Legislature (A-2955/S-1367; and A-3192) that would require that every GMO food product that is offered for sale in the state to contain a label indicating that the product contains GMOs. Additionally, there is legislation (A-1192) that would impose a similar labeling requirement for food containing any product from a cloned animal or its progeny. NJFB opposes these bills, and any other New Jersey Farm Bureau opposes legislation mandating the labeling of foods made with bioengineered products. The practice of labeling foods as “bio-engineered” or “made with bioengineered products” will serve no public service, and without public education could potentially frighten consumers away from safe, high quality products. 

The first Resolution debated proposed to make major changes to the current policy was introduced by a Mercer County farmer.

She opened her remarks by strenuously objecting to the fact that the Conference was sponsored by Monsanto, one of the largest GMO purveying corporations in the world.

She objected that the current policy was strongly biased in favor of the GMO industry.

She highlighted strong and growing public opposition to GMO foods in NJ. She urged that the Farm Bureau engage in a respectful dialogue with consumer, environmental, environmental health and other critics about their legitimate concerns.

The proposed Resolution did not recommend a ban, but proposed a set of reforms including the need for independent (non-industry funded) science;  making GMO corporations assume liability and pay for damages farmers suffer; and support for labeling legislation.

The question was called and the Resolution was soundly defeated by a voice vote – I think it had only 1 supporter in the entire room.

Next, a more modest reform Resoltiuon was introduced for discussion.

This was much milder that the first, and merely recognize that various consumer concerns were legitimate. The Resolution encourage support of voluntary FDA labeling or certification programs, and explicitly opposed mandatory labeling.

The proponent contrasted labeling requirements for organic foods that put the onus on small organic farmers, while the big GMO corporations were unregulated.

The question was called by the Chair. A voice vote seemed to be about even. A show of hands was ordered.

But even this modest Resolution failed by a single vote of 30-29.

So, it looks like corporate chemical and GMO interests have control, for now, over the NJ Farm Bureau membership.

The battle will be engaged in the legislature –

For information on issues and organizing, go to Food and Water Watch website. 

To read and find out the status of the proposed legislation cited in the policy above, hit the links or visit the NJ Legislature’s website.

More to follow on the agriculture/environment front.