[ad_1]
(Reuters)
The largest food companies and crop farmers such as beet sugar stand against each other as they pressurize the US government for projects. labeling of genetically modified ingredients
.
At the heart of the problem, there is transparency about the ingredients used in food. Packaged food manufacturers are facing declining consumer confidence and stagnant demand for some commodities, with consumers choosing foods with simpler ingredient lists.
Many food companies want the government to oblige manufacturers to include on the labels all ingredients that have been genetically engineered, known as GMOs.
But farmers want labels to exclude ingredients that have been so refined and processed that they no longer contain any trace of transformed genes when they are used for food.
Nestle, the world's largest food manufacturer, and its rivals, including Hershey Co and Unilever, want the US Department of Agriculture to include on the label the ingredients genetically modified crops. such as canola and soybean oils and beet sugar.
The USDA asked for comments on a proposal for mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients after a battle over the issue in states, including
Vermont urged the US Congress to pbad a law . The USDA has proposed a law enforcement plan. The deadline for public comment is July 3rd.
For farmers, faced with a backlash of GMOs by consumers, the fact that the ingredients no longer contain transformed genes before they turn into chocolates, pasta sauce and cereals mean that "food" is no longer a problem. they are excluded from labeling.
"The law has been very clear that the disclosure required is going to be for crops or ingredients that contain the genetic material," said Luther Markwart, head of the American Sugar Beets Association in Washington.
The entire sugar beet crop of the United States is genetically modified. "For things like sugar and other refined products that do not contain the genetic material, the law does not apply to us," said Markwart.
But Nestle, which manufactures frozen ready-made meals and frozen entrees from Stouffer, and Hershey, whose confections include Reese's peanut butter cups, do not agree
. Consumers want to know what's in their food and drinks. they deserve transparency. Kate Shaw said in a statement sent by email, noting that the company believes that these highly refined ingredients should be subject to the requirements.
Hershey Global Head of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Martin Slayne said labeling of these ingredients is both important for consistency and "meeting consumer expectations for transparency."
Many of the efforts made by food companies to prevent state labeling initiatives indicated in comments prepared on July 3 that the exclusion of refined ingredients would reduce by 78 percent. products covered by the federal law.
About 90 percent of US corn, soybean and beet crops are bioengineered, the trade group noted. Unlike other regions, the United States has adopted technology.
For sugar beet farmers in states such as Michigan, North Dakota and Idaho, herbicide tolerant seeds have increased yields and profits, and reduced uncertainty of agriculture
.
But many Americans have said that they want to know more about what's in their food, including whether bio-engineered seeds have been used.
If the USDA does not require that these ingredients be labeled as genetically modified, it would be up to the food companies to decide how to label them. This could increase the tension between companies and their suppliers of ingredients.
The way in which a food manufacturer chooses to label bioengineered ingredients that do not fall within the scope of government requirements could be challenged.
"We have no problem with transparency, but there has been a lot of misinformation out there," said Markwart. "The challenge is that there is not much space" on a label.
The labeling of GMOs has caused discrepancies between farmers and food manufacturers in the past.
At the end of 2016, a coalition of farmers criticized Dannon Co for marketing non-GMO products after the US subsidiary of Danone SA undertook to reform its supply chain to reduce the use biotechnology in its yoghurt products. Farmers said that Dannon's advertising misled consumers.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group in Washington, agrees with farmers that their finished ingredients are not scientifically different from their non-GMO counterparts, but said the products still need to be labeled.
"The USDA should read the law widely and provide consumers with as much information as possible, but it should be scientifically accurate," said Gregory Jaffe, director of the center's biotechnology project. "They need a different disclosure for these highly refined ingredients."
Source link
