Just label it.  It’s not that hard.  What is hard is believing that over 100 years after the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, I still don’t have the right to know what is in my food.  (Melanie Warner’s book, Pandora’s Lunchbox, has a fascinating overview of the origins of the FDA, processed food, and food additives.  Highly recommended, fast read.)  The problem isn’t limited to genetically modified organisms, but it irks me that I can go into a store and buy some food without any right to know about literally hundreds of things that could be in it.

As a preliminary matter, educate yourself.  You can read the entire text of the Washington state bill here: http://yeson522.com/about/read/  True, this is the “yes on 522” campaign page, but the entire text of the bill is on the website and there is a link to a .pdf version. This bill is different from the California bill that failed last year, in time frame, definitions, and requirements.  If you live in Washington and get to vote on this issue, reading the actual text of the bill will inform you more than any ad or speech and you will not fall prey to misinformation.  You can see the reasons for the bill, which are part of the preamble; you can also see the lengthy list of items that are exempt from the labeling requirement.

Why am I for labeling genetically modified food?

1. I don’t trust the opposition based on past bad behavior.

The loudest voice against the labeling law is a coalition led by seed producer Monsanto.  Monsanto, in case you are unfamiliar, owns the patents to most of the genetically modified crops in the United States.  According to the Associated Press, “five corporations and a trade group representing food manufacturers have largely financed efforts to defeat the measure, raising $17.2 million so far.” (See “Big money shapes WA GMO food label fight” at www.kgw.com, for example.)  It is no secret that I am do not like Monsanto.  I’m offended by their legal actions in the past decade.  These include suing farmers who save seeds from crops grown from Monsanto seeds (seed-saving is a custom that dates back to the beginning of agriculture), and suing organic farmers whose crops were contaminated by Monsanto’s crops growing across the street (Mother Nature does not recognize property boundaries).  As an attorney I understand the need to protect your intellectual property and contract rights, which arguable justifies suing the seed-savers, but suing the organic farmers is just rubbing salt into fresh wounds: first ruin their livelihood (GMO crops cannot be sold as organic, and after the organic farmers’ wheat was found to be contaminated several countries cancelled their contracts), then make them pay you for doing it.

1a. I don’t find the opposition’s arguments credible or persuasive. Personally, I’m not sure what real argument they have for NOT labeling genetically engineered foods.  They openly state GMO food is safe to eat and has no health effects, and they are proud of their many products, so I’m not sure why Monsanto doesn’t want you to know which of your foods might have their technology in them.  If the Monsanto argument is that a label is “fear mongering,” I’m not impressed.  For one, foods are already required to state their ingredients on the label, including most food additives (many of which are already known to be dangerous).  Those labels have not dissuaded people from buying foods with those labels.  Second, Monsanto certainly has enough resources at their disposal to stage an education campaign to teach us just why we should not be afraid of genetic engineering in food.  (Just look at how much they have spent opposing this campaign.)  I would love to see widespread publication of all of the independent, peer-reviewed, third-party studies of genetically modified foods, so that we can all have easy access to the science.

As a final note on this topic, not all food manufacturers oppose this bill.  Multiple food manufacturers, brands, and suppliers already support labeling genetically modified food.  (A list of supporters for the Washington bill can be found on the Yes on 522 website.)  Whole Foods has already adopted its own timetable to require all GMO-containing food to be labeled, and Chiptole has voluntarily undertaken to label any GMO food they use.  I have not seen any information that indicates they are suffering, financially or otherwise.

2. It’s easy.

Food companies are constantly changing and updating their labels for all sorts of reasons—such as a change in the recipe of the product, or the addition of a new item to the  mandatory allergens disclosures, or a change in status from non-Kosher to Kosher—this won’t be any different from any other label change.  The bill doesn’t require companies to change labels the day it is passed, they will have plenty of time to make plans.

 3. We want it.

Most Americans want a label.  According to the New York Times poll taken in summer 2013, 93% of people surveyed want to know which foods are genetically modified.

 4. Information wants to be free and available.

4a. These labels could literally save lives.  One of my parents’ close friends is violently allergic to eggs.  He is so allergic that when he once ate a sandwich that (unbeknownst to him) had been prepared on a grill that previously had an egg on it (but had been wiped down), he had such a severe reaction that he had to be hospitalized.  Now the Washington law would not require disclosure of which ingredients are genetically modified or how, but if I had a severe food allergy I wouldn’t want to eat any product that might contain any element of the food to which I was allergic.

4b. These labels will allow people to make their own choices. Let me give you a concrete example: I don’t eat Twinkies.  Why?  Reading the label indicates that Twinkies may contain beef fat.  I am a vegetarian.  The information on the label allows me to make an informed decision on this point. A GMO label would allow me to make educated choices about my food.

5. I want to reduce pesticide usage.

Personally, I do not want to support the increased use of pesticides.  Genetically engineered crops use more pesticides than other crops.  As a result, there are more pesticide residues on those crops, and more pesticides pumped into the soil, water, and air.  Part of why I choose organic when I can is to limit my personal consumption/usage of pesticides.

5a. Pesticides are bad for people who eat. Yes, pesticides are very helpful inventions that have allowed us to develop agriculture to the point where the earth grows enough food to feed everyone.  In today’s world, there is no reason anyone has to starve.  It wasn’t that long ago that people in the United States were literally dying of starvation.  But even the most pro-pesticide person has to concede that pesticides are meant to kill pests, and are not intended to be a condiment for people’s food.  Consumers have a right to know which produce is GMO so they can wash that produce extra carefully.  (Not everyone can afford to choose organic, and organic produce is not universally available.)  I’ll generally just rinse an organic crop with water, but I try to avoid eating pesticide residue on conventional crops.

5b. Pesticides are bad for soil, water, and bees.  Consumers have a right to know so they can choose conventional crops (or even organic ones) that are in line with their personal environmental policies too.Pesticides end up on and I the soil and ground water.  When it rains, pesticides from one farm wash into another farm, or even into my backyard.  Just as the increased use of antibiotics has led to “superbug” infections that are antibiotic resistant and difficult or impossible to treat, use of pesticides leads to “superweeds” that are resistant to pesticides—requiring even more pesticides (either in quantity or variety) to control.  Even if there are no additional pesticide residues on the resulting produce, pesticides applied to the crops end up in the soil and ground water.  There is evidence that pesticides play a role in colony collapse disorder (the recent phenomenon of bees dying off in large numbers).

5c. Pesticides are bad for people who pick your food.  More important, heavier applications of pesticides have a huge impact on the health of farm workers.  I don’t know how many farm workers you have met, but every one I had met works very hard for long hours at this manual labor.  Farm workers are generally paid a piece-work rate, which means they are paid for the amount of produce they harvest, not for the number of hours worked.  Farm workers are unlikely to have access to health care for themselves and their families, many of whom live in farm-owned housing that is secluded from the nearest community.  Farm workers are also frequently unable to afford child care, and as a result many bring their pre-school-aged children into the fields and orchards to work with them.  Those children are already exposed to high levels of pesticides and fungicides, and don’t need an increased dose.  You can go to www.ufw.org, the official home  page of the United Farmworkers (which isn’t a union, because farmworkers do not have the legal right unionize), for links to information on farmworkers and pesticides.

What do you think?  Why not just label it? Is this a health issue?

If you’ve found this post interesting or informative, please forward it to your friends (especially those in Washington State).  I’d love to hear how many “no on 522” ads Washington residents are subject to on TV, radio, billboards, etc. and which organizations are sponsoring them.

Comments are welcome (even those opposed to the Washington bill)  and are moderated.  Civil discourse only, logic is encouraged, and please go read the text of the bill first.

 

Selected Resources

2011 lawsuit by organic farmers against Monsanto

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-wins-appeal-tossing-patent-suit-by-organic-farmers/article_9f7a9fdf-9e7c-5030-a14e-1d913e1ef3b6.html  (St. Louis Post Dispatch, story by Bloomberg News)

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/11/2133121/appeals-court-monsanto-not-sue-farmers/ (Think Progress, a political news source, but with links to other sources)

NYT survey results

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?ref=science

NYT topic on GMO food, opinion, science, and food policy

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/genetically_modified_food/index.html

Google Scholar is a great resource for scholarly articles, studies, research, and papers.  A search for “pesticide bees collapse” produced 13,000 results.)

 

 

My running goal was never “to win this race.” I am fond of telling people that I look at racing this way: I’ve seen the Olympics, and at the end they give the people who win a big medal; every time I cross a finish line someone hands me a medal, so I must win A LOT of races!

A classic first-child/Type A/perfectionist/otherwise-driven personality, sticking with something that I’m not particularly “good” at (and frankly that I don’t know I like) is challenging for me. One of the ways that I have kept myself from getting crazy insane and overly serious about running is the Sparkle Skirt. It is pretty much just like it sounds–a skirt with sparkles on it. Totally ridiculous, as you can see:

Snoopy and Kat after Santa Rosa

On the left you can see me in the Sparkle Skirt (a commando model, since I like to wear compression shorts/tights) posing with my running buddy Kat and everyone’s favorite beagle after the Santa Rosa half marathon this past Sunday. (Santa Rosa, for those who don’t know, is the home of Charles Schultz. There is even a small Snoopy-shaped labyrinth.)

The Santa Rosa half marathon (and marathon and 5k) is in its fifth year, and it has hit a sweet spot that many older races can only dream of achieving. As you can see from the photos (credit to Kat, by the way, as they are hers), the race comes with a sweet spinner medal on a fat custom ribbon, and instead of yet another race shirt all runners receive a track jacket.  (The jacket came in a men’s and women’s version–blue and pink respectively–and features reflective stripes and venting mesh.  They run true to size, even in the women’s sizes.)  Santa Rosa is also the only race I have personally attended where packet pickup takes place at a winery–with wine tasting. What’s not to love??

But wait, it gets better.

(You might want to sign up for 2014 now: http://www.thesantarosamarathon.com/ It will sell out again next year.)

There were so many porta-potties at the start/finish that I never had to wait in any line. (I never had to wait at all–I just walked along the line until I found a green/unoccupied indicator.) If you’ve ever been to a race and had to wait in line, only to find the one open potty has no paper or is already full enough to reek (or like me, you’ve waited in line so long you miss the starting gun) you know how important the porta-potty factor is. Nearby were two stands dispensing hand sanitizing foam. Best porta-potties ever.  I wish I’d taken a picture, as it was unbelievable.  This fact alone makes me bow in gratitude towards the organizers.

The start/finish was a combined area. As a starting area, there was plenty of room to mill about and warm up (note the total absence of lines for the porta-potties). Bag check had no line and was well-organized. Only a minimal amount of the street was closed off by barricade fences, making it easy to get around.

The course for the half marathon shared much of the course for the full marathon, and had some areas where traffic went in both directions (as part was out-and-back). Initially I was worried about (1) crowding, since I’m not the most coordinated of people and if there was a way to accidentally knock down the next Mary Decker my body would find a way to do it, and (2) figuring out which way to go, as Mom was directionally challenged (she literally got lost with a map and compass, after which the Girl Scouts wouldn’t let her lead hikes any more) and just leave it to me to run the course backwards or something. Neither of those was a problem, even with the marathon field looking about twice as big as the half field. The transition points were well-marked and staffed by volunteers, often with accompanying water/gatorade/snack stations.

The course was also pretty. Most of it was in a local/regional park with murals along the walls and/or greenery. The one thing I love about running, without qualification, is spending time outside. Blessed with gorgeous weather, the Santa Rosa half course was at its finest. I loved running alongside several vineyards, and seeing birds eating their breakfasts along the way.

Back to the start/finish, the finish chute was wide and the photographers were placed in such a way that even I couldn’t trip over them. Stepping off the course with my shiny new medal, I was greeted by volunteers staffing a fruit table stocked with cut watermelon (BRILLIANT!), oranges, apples, and bananas. Bottled water was plentiful. Stepping out of the immediate finish chute area, the park provided plenty of room for runners and their friends and families to enjoy the day. In addition to booths from the race sponsors, the finish line also had an inflatable “bounce house” for the kids, food trucks (including my favorite organic ice cream, Three Twins), a beer garden with pulled pork sliders for sale, live music, and a free pancake breakfast for the runners. My huge pancake, complete with butter and syrup, was just what I needed. After relaxing a bit and having some snacks, I walked the 2 blocks back to my car. Did I mention the organizers are smart enough to put the start/finish right next to several humongous mall parking structures? Booyah!

I will admit that initially my finish time–3:14–kinda bummed me out. Between January and July, I’d managed to whittle my time down below 3:00, but Sunday I was just beat. Was it the oncoming heat? A small touch of humidity? Oh wait! It was probably that on Thursday I donated double red cells at the Red Cross blood drive! (Somewhat ironically, the charity beneficiary of the Santa Rosa race was the Blood Centers of the Pacific.)

See you next year, Santa Rosa!