F. GMO Labeling - No Excuses

SHOULD WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW?

GMO labeling is based on a simple question.  Do you or don't you believe American consumers should have the basic human right to know what they are eating?  If not - end of discussion.  Put a period.  Move on.  If we shouldn't have that right, then food manufacturers should not have to indicate whether a food is genetically engineered.  And they may as well stop listing food ingredients on labels, as well.  And why shouldn't food processors be allowed to add whatever they want to our food without telling us, like they do in China
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/consumer_product_safety/china/index.html)?

WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT, BUT...

       On the other hand, if we should have the right to know what we are eating, then it makes sense to discuss the ways in which that right can be actualized.  The position of some thinkers seems to be that letting people know what they are eating would be impractical, impossible, too expensive, etc.  This position seems either designed to entirely distract us from the rights question or to imply, without saying it directly, that this right to know is not worth protecting.  I can understand people who don't care about their health nor about what they put in their mouths who believe that the right to know what they are eating is completely insignificant, and therefore, not worth protecting or actualizing. 

       I'm sure there are, likewise, citizens who never cast votes in a civil election and who would not mind giving large corporations the power to select public officials, especially if that resulted in the non-voters saving a couple dollars on their taxes.  If the process of giving every eligible citizen the power to vote was ten times more expensive than it is, we should still have the right to vote.  I never heard that human rights are cheap.   From the beginning of this Nation, a lot of men and women have given their lives to protect our rights.  But, then again, look how we treat surviving war veterans (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/07/24/veteran-suicide-iava).

WHAT I WANT IS SIMPLE

      I believe that people should have the right to know what they are eating.  My principle concern in regard to that right and the focus of this blog post is GMOs.  I want  to  be able to tell if the food, or any part of the food, I might purchase from store shelves, store freezers, deli counters, farmer's markets, etc. is genetically engineered.

HOW COULD THAT HAPPEN? 

       One way to let me know if food is genetically engineered is to attach a note to the food with the letters "GMO".  Another method would be to include those letters on the label in the already required list of ingredients.  How would this come about?  One way would be for food producers, manufacturers, and marketers to recognize and respect consumers' rights and voluntarily label foods sold for human consumption that have been wholly or partly genetically engineered.

GMO LABELING LAW PROVISION #1

       When that fails to happen, the other way GMO labeling would occur is to require it by law.  For the law to be effective I think there are some provisions which would probably be indispensable.  One provision would be a definition of GMOs.  One could start with the World Health Organization's definition: "Organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally."  I would prefer replacing "altered in a way that does not occur naturally" with "altered by human bioengineering".  This would clarify that GMOs are not the product of hybridization, cross-pollination, or mutations occurring independent of human intervention .

GMO LAW PROVISION #2

       The law would also need to make clear that GMO labeling requirements apply only to food marketed for human ingestion.  For example, if a dairy cow given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), is slaughtered, the blood may be comingled with blood from cows not genetically modified.  If the blood is sold to a cosmetics firm for use in lipstick and nail polish, the blood would not have to be labeled as GMO because it would not be food sold for human ingestion.

GMO LAW PROVISION #3

      The law would also need to specify what is NOT a GMO.  Unless an animal is genetically engineered, it would not have to be lableled as GMO when sold for human ingestion.  However, any animal, GMO or not, that has been fed genetically modified feed, should be prohibited from being labeled as "natural" or "organic".
                                                GMO LAW PROVISION #4

      I read in a diary comment that one reason why GMO labeling would cost so much is that grains such as wheat are comingled in this country and that to change the system to keep GMO and non-GMO wheat separated would cost billions.  Pretty alarming?  According to http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/GMonMarketUS.pdf, there is no GMO wheat being marketed in the U.S.  Corn is the only GMO grain being grown for commercial consumption by Americans.  Approximately 80% of the corn grown in the U.S. is GMO. 
       Since there is the possibility of GMO and non-GMO foods being comingled, an additional provision to the GMO labeling law seems to be desirable.  That provision would be that if GMO food such as corn is comingled with non-GMO food, the resulting mixture should be labeled as GMO.  
      Another example would involve milk containing rBGH.  If rBGH milk is mixed together with non-GMO milk, the resulting mixture should be designated as GMO.
This eliminates the need to change the existing food processing system to keep GMO and non-GMO foods such as grains separated.  The alternative solution for food processors would be to not accept GMO product.

FEASIBILITY OF GMO LABELING

        Some diarists would like us to believe that GMO labeling would be an unreasonable, impractical, and technologically challenging burden for the food industry which will result in higher food prices for consumers.   If you would like to see how wrong they are, read about why GMO labeling won't increase food prices.  There is also an article at  http://www.anh-usa.org/....  that asserts that the cost of changing food labels is negligible.

    If GMO labeling is non-feasible, why and how do 30% of the world's countries have GMO labeling regulations (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/#)?  Are their GMO laws flawless?  No law is flawless.  But the fact that legislators in these countries passed GMO labeling laws testifies to their willingness to give human rights and the Common Good priority over corporate profits.

$ AND GMO LABELING

      I don't believe that GMO labeling would raise the retail cost of food.  But, if I'm wrong, so what?  Public parks, schools, and libraries cost money.  So do voting machines.  Not everyone values those things.  Nevertheless, they are parts of the Common Good and reasonable people would agree that the quality of American life would be diminished without these things.

       I can almost understand some Americans' willingness to give up their right to privacy for increased national security.  But are we really willing to trade the right to know what we are eating for cheaper food?  What's next?  Trading libraries, schools, and parks for cheaper taxes?  

       Where would we be today if the Founding Fathers had opted to keep prices and taxes down while preserving their own personal fortunes rather than to fight for the human rights of the American colonists? 

        The sad thing is that there is enough money in this country to maintain the quallity of the Common Good and for everyone who wants one to have a job that provides a healthful living wage.   (for documentation see www.equaleconomy.blogspot.com).    The problem?  Millionaires and billionaires are allowed to get wealthier while the lower 90% of income earners lose net worth (see www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com, A. Economic Inequality, #2. Net Worth).  That, and politicians are addicted to spending money that isn't theirs for unnecessary wasteful purposes that do nothing to enhance nor maintain the Common Good.  (For a discussion of wasteful government spending go to www.socialproblemsrg.com the National Debt post.)

E. Response to Rep. Boehners' plan/wish to sue the President over EPA carbon limit proposal

BOEHNER, CLIMATE, AND COAL

  The Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner seems to be upset by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal that would decrease carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants by 30% by 2030.  I can't help wondering why he would consider suing President Obama.  Speaker Boehner professes to believe that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon and more rapidly diminishing polar ice caps and glaciers occurring simultaneously is nothing more than coincidence.  But I can't believe that at some quiet moment as he is worshiping in church or as he is quietly laying in bed waiting for sleep, that he has not wondered if there is even a slight chance that the majority of the world's climate scientists are sincere and may even be right this time.
       Or does the congressman believe there is a conspiracy to ruin the world's economy by bankrupting the fossil fuel industry?  Who could have organized this effort and what would their motive be?  What would the motive of all those climate scientists be in going along with this subterfuge?  The reader may share my next thought. What is more believable, that there is a mysterious, inexplicable conspiracy to bankrupt the world's fossil fuel industry or that the present rapid rate of climate change is due to human activity?
      Assuming those who say they believe scientists are deliberately misrepresenting the truth are not themselves paranoid-delusional, what is motivating them to favor the fossil fuel industry over alternative renewable sources of energy?  Let's first consider the effects of shutting down more coal-burning power plants.  At the end of 2011, coal and oil-fired power plants were responsible for 62% of the arsenic pollution in the country and 50% of the mercury pollution according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html).    Power plants are also a source of fine particulate matter.  "Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects" (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particulatematter/).
       Then there is acid precipitation which includes not only acid rain but also acid fog or mist, acid snow, acid dust and acid gas.  "All of these can be formed in the atmosphere and fall to Earth causing human health problems, hazy skies, environmental problems and property damage....Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the principal pollutants that cause acid precipitation....Power plants burning coal and heavy oil produce over two-thirds of the annual SO2 emissions in the United States" (http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/acidrain.html).
        According to http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140219030325-258664-healthcare-costs-of-coal-60-billion-per-year, the National Academy of Sciences did a study in 2009 to "calculate the impact of fossil fuel burning on our health care system. The result: $120 billion per year of health care costs that are directly related to burning fossil fuels in America. The costs were about even between coal and oil. In 2011, Scientific American reported the healthcare burden of fossil fuels equated to 30,100 premature deaths each year – with 5,130,000 workdays lost."
         Considering the costs of increased health care, property and environmental damage one must wonder why Boehner et. al. are so concerned about coal plants having to close because they can't meet the proposed carbon emission requirements?   I wonder if Boehner is aware of a report that claims that 353 out of 1,169 coal generating plants in 31 states are ripe for retirement.   They are reportedly "old, inefficient, dirty, and no longer economically competitive" (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html).  Change happens, things get old.  Would Boehner like all coal plants to operate forever?  What is the value in that compared to the increasing cost of the energy they produce?
    One must also consider the possible effects of the EPA proposal on the coal mining industry.  As older coal-powered plants close but are not replaced by new coal burning plants, the demand for coal will decrease.  That is, unless the plants that remain open decide to operate at a greater capacity than they do now.
        What would be the effects of a decreased demand for coal?  How about less acid mine drainage (AMD)?  According to an article at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50449a020 by J.Raymund Hoffert of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, most coal mines discharge acid-impregnated mine water.  Streams and other waterways contaminated with AMD cannot maintain a healthy Ph balance.  In some cases, algae, insects, and fish are not able to survive in these waterways.
        Since there are better regulations these days for underground coal mine shafts, sinkholes and troughs due to old coal mine subsidence will hopefully occur less frequently in the future.  Subsidence has caused very serious property damage.  Prevention of damage from mine subsidence, of course, requires funding and manpower.
       Decreased demand for coal would mean the preservation of more beautiful rolling forested mountain tops.  Since carbon-related global warming is a reality to me, I feel compelled to point out that removing forests from the ground in order to get to the coal underneath "doubles" the effect of global warming.   The trees cannot absorb the carbon from the coal they once grew over since the trees will be dead by the time the coal is burned.  As the leaves and wood of the forest trees decay. even more carbon will be released into the atmosphere.
      Mountain top removal has advantages for the coal companies but it's a lose/lose proposition for environmental quality and for all of us who will suffer from the negative effects of global warming.
      As we consider the effects of less coal mining, we should not overlook the burning coal refuse banks and underground coal mine fires that can last for years.  These are sources of pollution without the benefits of producing electricity.  One could expect their incidence to decrease in frequency as less coal is mined.
       If I had the opportunity to say a few words to Speaker Boehner they would be these:  "So what if global warming isn't being driven by increased emissions of carbon?  Consider the other benefits of decreased coal mining.

1. Decreased arsenic and mercury pollution.
2. Decreased health care costs for problems related to small particulate matter.
3. More beautiful forested mountains remaining intact.
4. Less property damage due to acid precipitation.
5. Less pollution from out of control coal fires.
6. More market opportunities for cleaner sources of energy.
7. The accompanying increase in job opportunities.
8. More workers would be available to do the work of remediating the negative effects of underground and open pit coal mining.

      "Perhaps you should consider encouraging the EPA to set even stricter standards for coal-powered generator carbon emissions.  Does it not seem like the sooner coal goes the way of the dinosaur, the better off everyone will be?"
     One disadvantage to closing coal-powered plants is the money that will be lost by the owners/stock holders of the plants and the coal mines from which the coal comes.  How much money do our congressional representatives have invested in the fossil fuel industry?  And how much money from the fossil fuel industry fuels their campaign coffers?  This sounds like a more logical reason for politicians to be upset with the EPA proposal than the idea of jobs being lost.  If they really cared about jobs, they would raise taxes on the very rich, whose fortunes have been enhanced by their investments in the fossil fuel industries.  That extra federal income could be used to gainfully  employ laid off coal workers in remediating the environmental damage caused by the last two centuries of coal mining.
        There is another possible explanation for the resistance of certain powerful people in our society to the proposed EPA carbon emissions standard.  Might it be all about power?  It has been said that he who controls the food supply controls life.  What about he who controls the energy supply?  Alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar don't need to be supplied through the grid.  If solar energy develops to the point where it can supply all one's energy needs, one could conceivably live independent of the grid.  The question is, do those who now control the energy industry feel threatened by that possibility?