The Register Citizen (

GMO food labeling legislation heading to Connecticut House

By Ed Stannard

Friday, April 26, 2013

HARTFORD -- A bill requiring labeling of "genetically engineered foods," such as corn that produces its own pesticide, is making its way to the state House.
The law would cover food made from crops with genes that have been modified by inserting genetic material from another organism. Corn, used in many processed foods, including ubiquitous high-fructose corn syrup, is commonly modified with genetic material from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. The pesticide it produces kills insects such as the corn borer. Other genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, make crops resist weed-killing herbicides.
Those in favor of the law say consumers should have the right to know what they're eating, that not enough is known about GMOs' effects on humans. Opponents say research has not shown that GMOs are harmful and that labeling would burden retailers.
Paul Pescatello, board member and former president of Connecticut United for Research Excellence, said Bt corn, which is used in thousands of products in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, is no different from non-GMO corn from the consumer's point of view. A high-protein bean, for example, would have to be labeled.
With GMOs, "There's a difference in how the plant is grown, so to speak," but the "end product ... is no different from that naturally occurring," he said. He compared it to irradiating food, which does not change the food and requires no label. He said Bt is taken from a natural source and that many organic farmers spray it on their crops.
Pescatello said the issue is driven by emotion, not scientific research. "I challenge everybody, go look at the science. The science is overwhelmingly on the side of 'there's no difference,'" he said.
But Tara Cook-Littman of GMO Free CT said there's are big differences, a major one being that the pesticide produced by the corn is eaten along with the vegetable.
"The Bt that's produced by the corn ... that Bt is thousands of times more toxic and concentrated than the natural Bt," she said.
But the Connecticut bill would not ban GMOs, Cook-Littman said; it would merely require them to be labeled. "I think I definitely have a right to know that that's what I'm feeding my children," she said, adding that 62 countries require labeling.
"I'm personally not saying we know for sure GMOs are harming us. ... We had better do more research to figure it out," she said.
The bill, H.B. 6519, was approved 23-4 by the Public Health Committee, after a provision was added that would delay it from taking effect until labeling laws are passed by two additional Northeast states, including the five other New England states, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
State Rep. Philip Miller, D-Essex, a lead sponsor of the bill, said it is being worked on further to make sure it properly addresses health, environmental and ethical concerns, and that the number of states needed to trigger the law may be increased.
The Connecticut Food Association contends that any labeling law should be nationally mandated and even then would force retailers to be "the watchdog of anything coming into the supermarket," according to Stan Sorkin, president of the trade group. "The fact that it's contingent upon two Northeast states does not really solve the problem."
The national mandate was proposed Wednesday in the U.S. Senate that would require the Food and Drug Administration to label genetically engineered foods. "I want to make sure the food industry gives consumers the full story about what they put on their dinner tables," said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a co-sponsor, in a statement.
Sorkin said voluntary labeling is sufficient and that any food labeled organic contains no GMOs so consumers can choose to avoid them.
Cook-Littman said other laws work even though they're confined to one state, such as Connecticut's law requiring BPA to be removed from plastics.
Sorkin said the FDA has not required labeling because there's been no proof that GMOs are a safety issue. Labeling would be seen as a warning, he said. "It would be misleading. There would be an assumption that there's something wrong with it."
Henry Talmage, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, said the organization opposes the bill "primarily because we are really concerned about this being a state-by-state proposal." A farmer making an apple pie with corn syrup from another state would have to label it unless the farmer was sure there were no GMOs in the sweetener.
But, he said, "We're not opposed to labeling of (genetically engineered) foods if there's some reason to do so."
Richard Roy of Milford, a former state representative who is supporting the state bill, said the food and biotechnology industries claim safety issues and higher costs but restrict access to their products for testing.
Those on the Public Health Committee voting no were state Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, and state Reps. Christopher Davis, R-Ellington, Kevin Ryan, D-Montville, and Peggy Sayers, D-Windsor Locks.
Call senior writer Ed Stannard at 203-789-5743.