Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

genetically modified foods
(continued from page 27)
One concern would have been segregating
product with the GMO label
for the 10 percent of the national market
that California represents. Interestingly,
many of these same products are
sold in the similarly populated Canadian
market. However, it is recognized
that the international border makes a
much better barrier against inadvertent
MIT 1000
movement of goods between jurisdictions,
than, say, between Oregon and
northern California.
The passage of legislation of an individual
state requiring such a GMO designation
on food products remains in
the realm of the possible. With the precedent
set by Whole Foods to label all
products containing GMOs by 2018, it
The modern solution for food safety testing.
Fast ● Easy ● Inexpensive
Laser pathogen identification.
From culture plate to identification in 3 minutes ( a v erage.)
1-minute easy sample preparation time
2-minute test (average)
Consumables cost less than 15¢ per test
No chemicals needed - only uses water
M icro Identification Technologies
970 Calle Amanecer, Ste. F
San Clemente, CA 92673
1-949-388-4546
www.micro-identification.com
AOAC RI PTM Certification for Listeria Species,
AOAC International, Official Methods of Analysis
will become even more dificult for politicians
to avoid the issue. Few consumers
will realize that this action by Whole
Foods with their existing organic-centric
focus is a solid business decision, but
would be an immense challenge for individual,
conventional food retailers.
Given this scenario, perhaps the
food industry should drive the agenda
on GMO labeling instead of accepting
a regime designed by ouitsiders. It could
be a simple declaration “May contain
GMO ingredients” on products containing
soy, corn, canola and cottonseed oil
except those that are certified organic.
The “may” is important because there
is no guarantee that the product does
indeed contain GMOs, and the use of
“Contains no GMOs” should not be
permitted because “Certified Organic”
is GMO-free. The parallel to this is the
prohibition of labeling pork and poultry
products “Hormone free” because by
law, the practice is not permitted.
Such an initiative, while probably
heresy to the industry today, would address
the right-to-know movement and
would go some distance in silencing
critics of the entire food industry who
maintain that GMO transparency is in
short supply. Furthermore, with a vast
array of products thus labeled, the typical
consumer will most likely behave as
do their European counterparts and ignore
it just as they are doing with much
of the existing ingredient information.
Summary
In conclusion, GMO technology uptake
by the global agricultural industry
has been profound. Its overwhelming
and continued dominance of a few key
commodities has led to its nearubiquitous
presence in a host of food
products. As there is considerable evidence
of consumer apathy, in all probability
as time passes, GM foods will
join the heirloom organic tomato as an
uncontested element of our diets. •
Maurice J. Hladik, an accredited farmer, agriculture
economist and authority on farming and food consumption,
is the author of Demystifying Food from
Farm to Fork.
74 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e