There’s a new food category that is gaining popularity with shoppers, but that’s also becoming an enemy of farmers — both of the conventional and organic persuasion.
Consumer interest in non-GMO foods — those without genetically modified organisms — is growing, according to market researchers. Sales are expected to grow 65 percent from $200 billion in 2014 to $330 billion in 2019. But even though people may be willing to pay more for the label due to fear of the unknown — and unproven — potential consequences of consuming GMOs, the designation could end up meaning little when it comes to their health, and that of the environment.
The Chronicle reported Wednesday that Clover Stornetta Farms of Petaluma would be adding non-GMO certification to its conventional milk in early 2017, meaning it would require dairy farmers use GMO-free feed with its conventional herds. The move upset both organic and conventional farmers, as well as a few agriculture scientists.
The organic farmers who objected to the label feel that the non-GMO designation takes away from organic certification, which already requires that farmers avoid using genetically engineered seed and animal feed. Meanwhile, some conventional dairy farmers said the term “non-GMO milk” makes their perfectly safe product sound scary.
Clover declined to comment on the reaction to its labeling plan.
“Consumers can feel confident that ALL milk is GMO free. GMOs aren’t in the milk, regardless of GMO or non-GMO feed,” tweeted Cindy Sorensen of the Midwest Dairy Association, which represents Minnesota dairy farmers, in response to the article.
Sorensen is right: Milk is not genetically engineered, and neither are dairy cows. Most conventional milk comes from cows given supplemental feed from genetically engineered corn and soy. “Non-GMO milk” is shorthand for milk from cows that do not consume such feed — which is also true of organic milk.
Fourth-generation New York dairy farmer Lorraine Lewandrowski — also a lawyer for farmers who is active on Twitter as @NYFarmer — has followed the development of an online campaign using the hashtag #GMODairy that she says vilifies conventional dairy farmers. Vani Hari, a blogger who writes as the Food Babe, depicted Starbucks lattes as full of “Monsanto Milk” in an article “Wake Up and Smell the Chemicals.” (Hari’s views have been widely debunked as wildly unscientific and sometimes nonsensical.)
“They kind of demonize us,” said Lewandrowski. “A lot of the activist types would say the cow is fed only GMO corn.”
Lewandrowski pointed out that dairy cows eat primarily grass, alfalfa and/or hay, and that corn and soy feed is supplemental. The farmer looked into buying non-GMO feed, but it would have cost more than twice the usual price.
Those involved in organic agriculture who reacted to the story had a different perspective on the growth of non-GMO labeling.
“The whole GMO labeling movement has really put a damper on the organics movement,” said Rebecca Thistlethwaite, an author and consultant in Mosier, Ore., who previously ran a farm in Watsonville. “There are a lot of consumers who falsely believe that when they buy non-GMO it’s meeting certain value standards that they have around sustainability, but without the organic price tag.”
Unlike the feed used in the production of organic milk, “non-GMO” grain growers can apply conventional pesticides and herbicides to their crops, and usually ones that are more toxic than the Roundup used for crops genetically engineered to resist the Monsanto-produced herbicide.
Also, they are not required to have soil or water conservation practices, to support biodiversity on their land, use organic fertilizers, rotate crops or follow other rules of organic farming, Thistlethwaite said.
Alison Van Eenennaam, cooperative extension specialist at the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis, added that non-GMO animal feed crops have a larger ecological impact than genetically engineered versions because of their decreased resistance to disease and pests, and lower yields.
In addition, Eenennaam’s research has concluded that DNA from genetically engineered feed is not passed to milk or meat. Her 2014 scientific review of 30 years of livestock studies showed no difference in the health of animals given genetically engineered feed and those consuming unmodified feed, or a difference in the nutritional makeup of their meat or milk.
“We are really talking marketing here — developing a product line to differentiate it from a product that already does not contain GMOs,” she said. “As a company they of course can develop whatever products they want and if they see a profitable market — then it is a good business decision.”
But she sees dire consequences for limiting advances in agricultural science with the world population set to hit 9 billion by 2050.
“We can keep taking technologies away from farmers by pandering to fearmongering around safe technologies — at the end of the day it just increases the environmental footprint of a glass of milk with no food safety benefit.”
Source: SF Chronicle
