news blog | November 28, 2012 | 6 comments

Peru bans genetically modified foods as US lags

By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com / @stephgwhiteside

Genetically modified foods are foods made from genetically modified organisms. A few weeks ago, California voters turned down Proposition 37, which would have required that GMO foods be labeled as such. Chemical companies and processed-food manufacturers heavily — and successfully — backed a campaign opposing the proposition. Nationwide, GMO crops are prevalent and efforts to label GMO foods have yet to get off the ground.

But outside the U.S., you can find a different approach.

Peru has said "no" to genetically modified foods — a 10-year ban on GMO foods takes effect this week. Peru's ban on GMO foods prohibits the import, production and use of genetically modified foods. The law is aimed at safeguarding the country's agricultural diversity and preventing cross-pollination with non-GMO crops. It will also help protect Peruvian exports of organic products.

Peru isn't the first country to ban GMO foods or place restrictions on their use. Earlier this year, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto's GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer; France also has a temporary ban on the corn. Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops since 2009. Japan and Egypt also ban the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until 2013.

Even countries that don't ban GMO crops may place restrictions on them. Germany requires farmers growing GMO crops to maintain a minimum distance from conventional farms and holds them liable for damages if conventional crops are contaminated via cross-pollination. A German court upheld the restrictions, turning down a complaint that claimed the regulations unfairly damaged farmers.

In some places where GMOs are permitted, labeling is required, enabling consumers to decide if they wish to purchase foods containing GMOs. In 1998, the European Union began requiring labels for food products with more than 0.9 percent of ingredients from genetically modified processes. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa, require labeling for foods containing GMOs.

The U.S., however, has no such requirements. Efforts to ban GMO foods or require labeling have occurred only on a local level. Most recently, California's Proposition 37 was an attempt to require labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients. The proposition was defeated at the ballot box after Monsanto and other companies poured money into opposing the effort, including an ad campaign that claimed the labeling requirement would cause the cost of groceries to skyrocket.

When other countries are taking the step to ban GMO crops outright, the U.S. remains resistant to even allowing consumers to know if they are consuming food made with genetically modified ingredients. America is embracing the cultivation of GMO crops while other countries are taking a more cautious approach — and now thousands of products in the United States contain GMOs, a contrast to Europe, where labeling is required and few products use genetically modified ingredients. Manufacturers of GMOs claim genetically engineered products are safe and well accepted, but the resistance to labeling suggest otherwise. When it comes to consumer choice on GMOs, the U.S. shouldn't be lagging behind.

  1. groups:
    news blog
  2. tags:
    The Underreported Story
  3.     
    |

6 comments // Peru bans genetically modified foods as US lags

  • Charlie_Peters
    • 0
      Charlie_Peters  
    • California CARB fuel was close to zero ethanol in our fuel in 1992..
      1992 fuel price about $1.40 per gallon.
      Ethanol push from fed EPA and friends pushed ethanol to 5.6% and we paid more for our fuel.
      Fed EPA and Big oil refiners pushed the oxygenate to 10% and we paid more.
      Now BP GMO fuel is pushing for over $1.00 in corporate welfare with 15% of the fuel market while cutting back Oil and refining
      Will BP GMO fuel patents generate credit trade income from the Big oil industry with the Queen Mother help.
      The Queen banker friends may want a share.
      So. how big does California ethanol bill need to be to qualify for the EPA waiver?

    • 4 months ago
  • Ry_Ed
  • ampersand
    • 0
      ampersand  
    • Great post. Ecuador has long been one of my favorite places on the planet. Glad to see it is pulling even further ahead. Good on them.

    • 4 months ago
  • jason_knight
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://current.com/technology/93965461_new-gmo-inside-campaign-denounces-corpora...

      We just lost a battle. We now need to win the war. And it is debatable whether or not Prop 37 was actually defeated since there were still millions of votes uncounted when the results were called by AP. Washington state is now picking up where Prop 37 left off. And the primary reason behind why GM foods have not been labelled in the US is because the USDA, FDA and administrations on down the line including the Obama administration have been honoring a bogus decree called "substantial equivalence" which basically gives these multinationals like Monsanto, DOW Chemical, et al an out not only regarding disclosure but regulation.

      Independent scientific testing is showing that there are health and environmental dangers regarding longterm use of these organisms in our food supply especially in concert with herbicides like Round Up. However, because the "substantial equivalence" label was placed on them they have escaped scrutiny. Also, big money (and subsidies) in the big ag industry have gone a long way in buying them free reign over our food system as well as the USSC allowing them to patent the genes essentially patenting life itself.

      Transgenic contamination is threatening the biodiversity of our world as is monoculture. The world sees this, is experiencing it and is rightfully standing up to it. Only in the US where money rules over principle do we once again see our environment and health being sold to the highest bidder. It is time for that to end and for Monsanto and all of these chemical companies respinning their images as " sustainable agriculture" companies that have been poisoning us since before Vietnam with Agent Orange, dioxin and PCBS to pay for their crimes against nature and us. Labelling is just the first step.

      Thanks for covering this actually UNreported story here.

      For anyone not aware I and others have been reporting on this for years on Current. You can read much more on Monsanto and GMOs (including the stories mentioned here) at the link for the Sustainable Agriculture group on this post.

      http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/

      http://current.com/tags/85538011_monsanto/new/40/

    • 4 months ago
  • ArjanD
    • 0
      ArjanD  
    • Very nice! I am from The Netherlands and notice that the EU forces countries that have banned GMO with sanctions, which does not make sense to me.

      GMO food is incest in the field of nutrition. The complex coherence of genes foresees in more then people can see in it. There must be a basis of respect for nature / genes of plants and animals.

      It is not possible to predict the future to know what is needed tomorow for succes. We therefor need to collaborate with nature for the best chance on survival and respect plants and animals as beings with a 'shared unforseeable future'.

      "It takes two to tango" You can't stand above life as being life because when you would try to do so you work in the wrong direction what results in a figurative stone that sinks into the ocean of time.

    • 4 months ago
sgwhites
more from news blog:

top videos