Barcode system could be used for GMOsASPEN, Colo. — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he has been so impressed by Nestlé’s barcode labeling system that he believes putting information about genetically modified ingredients in the same manner on food labels could resolve the issue of labeling foods that contain GMO ingredients.
By: Jerry Hagstrom, Agweek
ASPEN, Colo. — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he has been so impressed by Nestlé’s barcode labeling system that he believes putting information about genetically modified ingredients in the same manner on food labels could resolve the issue of labeling foods that contain GMO ingredients.
In a wide-ranging discussion about U.S. food policy at the Aspen Ideas Festival on June 26, Vilsack also said ending the use of antibiotics in meat production would lead to “astronomical” increases in meat prices, and discussed what the 2014 farm bill does for organic and local production.
Vilsack said the “challenge” in the GMO labeling debate is that food labels have either provided people nutritional information about products or warned them about possible allergies. Labeling for GMOs does not fit into either of those categories, Vilsack said, “but the consumer has a right to know.”
He said Nestlé officials have shown him an “extended barcode,” which he believes consumers could read with their smartphones or on machines in grocery stores to determine whether a product contained genetically modified ingredients without sending any “misleading” messages.
The labeling proposals now being considered by some states will result in court cases that will cost millions in legal costs, but “five years from now we will be back at the festival talking about extended bar codes,” Vilsack said.
When asked about Vilsack’s comments, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes labeling of biotech foods said, “The use of barcodes as a vehicle for providing consumers with more information about the products they purchase is something worth exploring. However, a federal GMO labeling standard would still be needed to prevent a 50 state patchwork of GMO labeling laws that would be both costly and confusing for consumers.”
A Nestlé spokeswoman said she had no response to Vilsack’s barcode statement, and a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Council said it has not taken an official position on barcoding.
Asked by The Atlantic Senior Editor Corby Kummer, who moderated the discussion, whether barcodes would only work for higher income people with smartphones, Vilsack said a larger percentage of the population has smartphones, but that there could also be scanners in stores for all consumers to use.
Vilsack also noted that 660 studies have shown that foods with genetically modified ingredients do not cause health problems.
Vilsack said he is making an effort to resolve conflicts among genetically modified, organic, and conventional production, and that he has ordered studies on gene flow.
Organic producers would like reimbursement and compensation for losses as a result of genetic contamination, he noted, but “at the very least” they should have a crop insurance program that provides protection.
“There is a great deal of activity taking place trying to bring people together,” Vilsack said. “I am looking for the common good. If it does not happen, it is going to tear agriculture apart.”
More conflict could cause the U.S. to lose its competitiveness in agriculture, he noted.
New support of fruit, vegetables
Vilsack also said the new farm bill is providing unprecedented levels of support for fruit and vegetable producers including microloans for small producers, research, an increase in specialty crop block grants, the farm-to-school program, food hubs, more support for conservation and and more help in the transition from conventional to organic production.
USDA has also built more than 13,000 “tunnel houses” to extend the production season, made it possible for food stamp beneficiaries to use their electronic benefit cards at about half the nation’s 8,400 farmers’ markets, and signed organic equivalency agreements with foreign countries to increase exports, he said.
Vilsack also noted that 20,000 USDA employees have taken a basic course in organic production so organics can be integrated into USDA’s programs, and that 8,000 employees have taken a more advanced course.
The question of antibiotics
During the question and answer session, Institute of Medicine President Harvey Fineberg said one of the “severe” problems in the country is human resistance to antimicrobial drugs.
(Although the term “antibiotic resistance” is usually used in this discussion in Washington, Fineberg used the term “antimicrobial,” which the Centers for Disease Control says means antibiotics and similar drugs.)
Fineberg proposed that USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service use its labeling authority so consumers who prefer antimicrobial-free meats could find it and asked “what would be the disruption” if antimicrobial drugs were banned completely in animal use.
Vilsack replied that the increase in the cost of foods would be “astronomical.”
Fineberg countered that the system has changed in Europe and that meat prices have not soared, but Vilsack said meat prices are higher in Europe.
The secretary acknowledged the antimicrobial problem, but said he believes the “way to do this” is the current approach to end the use of antibiotics for growth purposes, but continue it to fight disease under the guidance of a veterinarian.
Former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who also participated in the discussion, noted he had been on the Pew Commission on Industrial Agriculture and concluded that the resistance problem is not just animal use but overuse in humans. Glickman said he agreed with Vilsack’s approach.
In an interview afterward, Fineberg told Agweek he thinks antimicrobial drugs should be used to treat sick animals, but he fears some veterinarians might prescribe the drugs too frequently and, therefore, people should be able to find meat from animals on which the drugs have never been used.