Green Legislative Memos on Genetic Engineering

Memo In Support of a Five Year Moratorium on Genetically Modified Crops
Memo In support of labeling milk with BGH
Memo in Support of labeling genetically engineered foods

Memo In Support of a Five Year Moratorium on Genetically Modified Crops

S1397 (LaValle) / A2826 (McEneny) April 19, 2003

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to genetically modified crops.

The New York State Greens supports this legislation which would enact a five year moratorium on the planting or growing of genetically modified crops for a period of five years (from January 1, 2003). Genetically modified crops are produced from plant varieties created using techniques that alter the molecular or cell biology of an organism by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.

A moratorium would give the government and researchers time to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment. Potential hazards include: the development of insect and weed resistance to pesticides (e.g., superweeds); injury or death of non-target species; crop loss from seeds that do not yield as expected or that produce crops with unexpected characteristics; and allergenicity, toxicity, or decreased nutritional value of genetically modified crops. The pollen of genetically modified (BT) corn has been found to kill monarch butterfly larvae. In the mid-1990's, Pioneer Hi-Bred International were days away from introducing a soybean that included a Brazil nut gene when tests found that people with nut allergies had an allergic reaction to the modified soybean. About 2% of adults and 8% of children suffer from food allergies.

Dramatic increases in the planting and consumption of such crops over the past several years have far outpaced our understanding of their immediate and long-term effects. Nationwide, one-fourth of US cropland contains genetically modified crops, including more than 35% of all corn. Most genetically crops in the world are grown in the U.S. More than 50 genetically engineered crop plants have been approved by the USDA, including potatoes, tomatoes, melons and beets. USDA does not presently require any health or safety tests before genetically engineered crops are marketed, leaving it to biotech firms to decide whether they are safe.

Foods produced from genetically modified crops are increasingly being rejected by distributors, processors, retailers and consumers alike in both domestic (e.g., Frito Lay; Gerber and Heinz baby food) and international markets (e.g., European Union). The growth of genetically modified crops in New York State thus places all state farmers at risk in the marketplace: both those who intentionally plant genetically modified crops, and those whose conventional crops can be unintentionally contaminated by genetically modified crops. For instance, the pollen from corn, one of the most frequently genetically modified crops, can be carried by the wind for many miles). Such cross-pollination is a major problem for both organic and conventional farmers. A farmer in Canada was successfully sued by Monsanto for theft of property for planting seeds from his own crops that had been contaminated the previous year by the genetically engineered crops on a neighboring farm. U.S. corn exports to Europe have virtually stopped due to the GMO issue, a loss of $200 million. A cherry farmer in NYS recently lost an $8 million contract with a company in Japan not because the cherries were genetically engineered but because they were packed in corn syrup, which might have been genetically engineered..

A moratorium on the planting and growing of genetically modified crops in New York State will enhance the value and protect the reputation of New York State’s agricultural products, conferring a significant marketing advantage while preserving the state’s ecological health. The legislation requires the state Department of Agriculture and Markets to prepare a marketing plan that uses the moratorium as a promotional tool for New York State agricultural products. An amendment has been made to prior year’s legislation to allow for research for genetically modified crops, pursuant to federal guidelines.

The New York State Greens strongly supports the moratorium on genetically modified crops.

Memo In Support of Requiring Milk From Cows Treated with BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) to be Labeled

A2192 (McEneny) / S 3617 (Oppenheimer) April 14, 2003

An Act to require dairy products sold in New York State derived from cows that have been injected with rBGH to be so labeled.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is a genetically engineered drug which increases the production of milk by cows. Recombinant BGH is used mostly in large factory scale dairy operations and is a factor in squeezing smaller dairy farmers off the land. According to Monsanto, which makes rBGH, the drug is injected into about 30 percent of U.S. dairy cows. The U.S. is one of a handful of industrial countries that allows the sale of milk produced from cows treated with rBGH. In 1999, The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, ruled unanimously in favor of the 1993 European moratorium on Monsanto's genetically engineered hormonal milk(rBGH).

Canada, in deciding in 1999 to continue its ban on rBGH, criticized the United States for the poor quality of the studies it had relied upon to approve the use of BGH. The study, conducted by Monsanto, showed that rats that had consumed milk from rBGH-treated cows developed abnormalities of the thyroid and prostate glands. FDA has claimed that it was unaware of the study when it approved the drug. The European Union went even further, citing concerns about significant health risks posed to human by the use of rBGH. Milk from cows treated with rBGH contains elevated levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor), a natural hormone which has been implicated in breast, prostate and colorectal cancer.

rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation, leaking pus, blood, and bacteria into the milk.. They can suffer from lameness, metabolic disease, infertility, stress and shortened life spans. rBGH cows are treated with heavy doses of antibiotics to attempt to control their udder infections. Increased use of antibiotics is one of the contributing factors in the rising rates of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses. Approximately 40% of the beef used to make hamburgers is ground up from old dairy cows. Meat from rBGH treated cows may contain higher levels of harmful drug.

Repeated injections of rBGH artificially stimulates cows to produce up about 10% more milk than normal. The hormone forces cows to produce more milk for several years, after which their milk production declines dramatically.

Studies have found that rBGH increases the fat content and decreases the protein content of milk during the early stages of its use. It can also cause milk to sour more quickly, imposing speed-up on farmers, and shorter shelf-life at markets and at home. rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural mil according to a new book by Dr. Samuel Epstein (Got (genetically engineered) Milk?)

A 1996 University of Wisconsin study found that 74 percent of the American public considered the recombinant hormone a hazard and 94 percent favored mandatory labeling.

The Greens are committed to ecology, grassroots democracy, nonviolence and social and economic justice.

Memo in Support of Labeling Genetically Engineered Food

A 4206 (DiNapoli) / S 1834 (LaValle) April 14, 2003

Provides for the labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically modified material or that are produced with a genetically modified material

The New York State Greens supports this legislation which would require food or food products that have been genetically engineered to be labeled as such. Genetically modified crops are produced from plant varieties created using techniques that alter the molecular or cell biology of an organism by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.

A variety of plants are being grown that contain genetically modified organisms, including corn, canola, cotton, wheat, apples and strawberries. It has been estimated that 60-70% of packaged grocery products contain some genetically modified organism ingredients. Consumers should be provided the information necessary to make informed decisions when choosing food products for their families. This legislation requires that the information be provided through product labeling.

Labeling will protect people who have allergies. Millions of Americans have allergies to certain foods. Genetic engineering may increase the risk that they will accidentally consume foods that contain allergens. If genes of a particular kind of nut are inserted in a vegetable, for example, a consumer who is allergic to that nut may be at risk. Without labeling, consumers will have no way of protecting themselves from hidden allergens.

In at least 32 countries laws are being enacted which require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food (Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Greece, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.). In other countries selling GE food is simply illegal (Algeria, Brazil or India).

In the U.S., we have a long tradition of citizens' "right to know" as expressed in laws requiring nutritional labeling of foods. The public strongly supports labeling of genetically engineered foods. According to a June 2001 ABC News telephone poll, 93 percent of Americans support labeling of genetically engineered foods. A 1999 Time magazine survey revealed that 81 percent of those surveyed say that genetically engineered food should be labeled. In 1997, Novartis, the giant genetic engineering company, released its own survey that showed that 93 percent of Americans want bioengineered food to be labeled. In January 2001, a coalition of 270 consumer groups, including the American Association of Retired People and the Consumers Union, called on President Bush and Congress to label biotech foods.

Labeling will foster consumer awareness of genetically engineered foods. An estimated two-thirds of the products on supermarket shelves contain GE ingredients. But so far, only one-third of Americans are aware that their foods contain GE ingredients. Agribusinesses fear that labeling will harm sales; polls show that a majority of Americans would prefer not to eat GE foods. Labeling would put the onus on agribusinesses to demonstrate that their products are safe--something they have yet to accomplish.

Labeling will assist people who have religious or ethical problems with GE foods. Vegetarians, for example, may not want to eat tomatoes that have been engineered to include flounder genes.

Return to home