GMO Labeling DanceBarbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Thought that products labeled Non-GMO meant that animals sold for consumption were fed Non-GMO feed? So did I. Well, it seems that those pushing the Dark Act have stooped to a new low. Evidently, making sure that GMOs are not labeled is not enough. They also want to make sure that the Non-GMO label is totally corrupted by allowing animals fed GMO feed and slaughtered for consumption, as well as products such as eggs and milk that GMO-fed animals produce, to be labeled “Non-GMO.”

I suspect that this is the next logical step due to the fact that genetically engineered fish have been introduced to the food chain, and other living creatures are in the pipeline that have been directly manipulated. After all, if they haven’t had their genes spliced and diced and have simply eaten GMOs, that doesn’t count, and they should be considered “Non-GMO.” NOT!

According current Non-GMO Project Guidelines:

As stated in section V.B., the Action Threshold for animal feed is 1.5%. At time of annual evaluation, the average of all quarterly composite tests for the prior year must be as follows:

Through November 2020, the annual average may not be more than twice the Action Threshold.

Quarterly results or averages in excess of the Action Threshold shall trigger an assessment of the cause of contamination and appropriate steps to eliminate identified sources of contamination.

After December 2020, the annual average must be below the Action Threshold.

Testing Methodology:

Testing method must yield valid quantitative results for all Major Ingredients. When feedstuffs can be isolated into their raw material components, strip testing may be used. When feedstuffs are tested as a blend form, PCR testing must be used.

Feed must be in compliance according to the following life cycle guidelines:

  • Meat animals (other than Poultry): starting at birth
  • Poultry: starting from 2nd day after hatching
  • Dairy animals: for one full year prior to verification

In other words, the Non-GMO Project states that animals fed GMOs in excess of the current contamination threshold and time limitations will not be labeled as Non-GMO.

The Dark Act will negate those standards and any animal fed GMOs that has not been directly genetically engineered will qualify as Non-GMO. And who will be able to tell the difference? After all, the label says Non-GMO.

US DARK Act Shocks Consumers with Non-GMO Label for GMO Fed Meat and Dairy

Warren Taylor, Co-Owner of Snowville Creamery in Ohio, stated Monday; “The DARK Act affirmed the U.S. government’s refusal to require GMO labeling despite almost universal public desire for GMO labeling. It makes labeling a federal function, so individual states cannot pass unique labeling laws. This is a common sense requirement in today’s marketplace. The most egregious part of the Act went almost completely unnoticed. A single Trojan horse paragraph at the end of the non-GMO product labeling section allows meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed GMO feed to be labeled as non-GMO. In this way the DARK Act went from not telling to actively intentionally misleading the public about the GMO content of meat, milk, and eggs.”

Snowville Creamery recently commissioned a poll carried out by Public Policy Polling which found that 76% of people expect that a non-GMO dairy label would mean the cows were fed non-GMO feed. The full results of the poll can be found on the Home Page of Snowville Creamery’s website.

The “Trojan horse” paragraph is a huge boost to the Biotech industry in the U.S, which relies very heavily on GMO feed for animals. Of the two largest GMO crops in the United States, an estimated 98% soy and 79.5% of corn goes directly into feeding animals and fueling cars.

The scandalous paragraph, that seems to have been placed with intent on page 19 of the DARK Act, contradicts and is expected to take legal precedence over a similar paragraph on page 17.

The text of the paragraph on Page 19 reads:

“(d) Treatment of Livestock – In the case of a covered product derived from livestock that is marketed in the United States for human consumption, the covered product shall not be considered to be genetically engineered solely because a livestock consumed feed produced from containing, or consisting of a genetically engineered plant.”

This is like saying that if the animal is not a toxic chemical and has simply eaten toxic chemicals, then that animal and the products produced from that animal can be labeled toxic chemical-free.

And the labeling dance continues…

©2015 Barbara H. Peterson

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Products from Animals Fed GMOs Labeled Non-GMO?”

  1. Irene says:

    Bring a video camera when you go to talk to the representative.

  2. Abe says:

    Go to your town hall meetings! Know how your corporate Reps voting record. If they support labeling or even a ban, make a big deal out of it, and sound very appreciative.
    Otherwise, lay into them like a bullet train at ramming speed!!! Do your best job to publically humiliate the hell out of them!