you're saying that roundup ready is bad now there is no chemicals or pesticides inside roundup ready seeds it is basically taking out a plant that had a d n a that was resistant area in five minutes and whichever way you decide you'd like to testify i'll take the lead thank you for letting us appear today my name is jeff williams and i work with new york farm bureau in the manager of government apples in top ten for vegetables we shipped in new york we shipped across the country and we shipped overseas we have a very vibrant feed green industry we supply feed to our growing dairy industry it's already increased thirty one percent since two thousand and nine and we've recorded three has increased by two point six million bushels in two thousand and ten about eighty percent of corn and soybean in this country in the state are produced through you're not in the tractor as long as so that can equal three to five pesticide applications a season and just as point of interest about ten years ago we were doing this issue a similar biotech issue and if we moved in transition to biotechnology and here we are again this is going to be particularly important because we to double food production in the world by twenty fifty and we need to do that not just in america but teach developing countries how to do that as well and biotechnology is playing a large part in increasing yields drought resistant corn and helping disease fighting disease in fruit and vegetables we defend upon our federal government for decides if it's safe to grow e p a decides if it's safe the environment in the f d a through a consultation process decides if it's safe to eat the u s d a has said there's no significant difference between foods produced using bioengineering in their conventional counterparts  it's going to increase costs as you've probably heard we'll hear later on today as well in california when they were looking at the proposition thirty seven it was determined that it increase about four hundred dollars per family the libya labeling mandate which may be fine for some higher income people the low income people simply cannot afford to pay that much money oregon's leading proposal is estimated to cost taxpayers about twenty million dollars greenhouse gases by virtue of biotechnology because of low taylor no till farming that biotechnology allows us reducing greenhouse gases about six equally about six point three million cars a year so there are sizeable environmental nephews that we hope to integrate into our farm as for the hearing today biotechnology is not a new idea an agricultural biotechnology is simply a new name for continued improvements in the tools used to breed better varieties of crops consumers have been the beneficiaries of biotechnology for many years biotechnology has given diabetics a safe reliable and consistent supply of insulin since the early one nine hundred hundreds biotechnology has also given she's manufactures an effective and efficient means of obtaining r bt corn is utilized to control european corn bore and and other things and it's a product that i have used on my farm like all farmers i take very seriously the quality of milk and crops i produce to help feed our ever growing population that's why i support a and f d a who are charged with protecting our food supply and safety of our environment and i'll just say this after listening to the first person testify this morning i would encourage you to have someone from the f d a come then because i've always been led to believe i know he said that the salmon in alaska has a requirement to be labeled but it's not on the market why isn't it on the market i would likely say it's because it's being held up by f d a or  a has consistently stated there's no significant difference between food produced using bioengineering as a class in their conventional counterparts new york farming as a grassroots organization that supports the rights of organic farmers to grow and market their crops and fill this market just like we support the ability of farmers to make their own marketing decisions in regards to the usage of biotechnology that said i do not agree with legislation  food produced using biotechnology especially given scientific evidence that i just stated labeling legislation when this lead consumers as u s d a has declared increase the food cost for consumers in a failing economy this all seems a bit unnecessary when i can walk into my grocery store and buy foods already labeled certified organic or non g m o we already have a labeling system in new york this leads me to a question if we did have labeling in new york how would it be enforced who would inspect the food productions processed label claims how do you ensure the integrity of the system for food production and g m o labeling i just said talk to the number of my fellow dairy farmers last week about this very issue and our big question is a lot of people are using it if you steal label and it's not backed up by a by the federal government of the state government that labels only as good as the person you're buying it from so if you know your farm or if you're going to a farmer's market and you trust that farmer you can trust that label otherwise what good is the label thank you for attention to my testimony if you had to answer any questions thank you the morning my name is bench and then i'm from columbia county new york dutch hello farm my family and i farm two thousand two hundred acres and melt six hundred cows it's a three generation family farm was sixteen members ranging in age from seventy to one we grow ninety percent of the feed for our animals which are dairy cows which includes soybeans biotechnology derived crops reduce the use of chemicals prevent insect damage to the crops and improve the amount of feed grown per acre through crops we can improve conservation methods by less tillage preventing erosion we can target specific fields and areas for insect problems rather than having to use widespread chemicals use of ground up ready products has decreased the number of trips over the field to spray herbicide and cultivate the crop eliminate the need of cultivation has decreased erosion on our farm this allows for better conservation methods and preserving the soil that we have not used insecticides on our farm for over ten years also using g m o crops allows us to target the crops predatory insects so we're only targeting the insects that are affecting the corn in the soybeans years soybean and corn the has been genetically modified is more resistant to drought and adverse weather conditions as we've seen in the last few years this helps ensure that every see that we plant in the ground is going to  crop to grow one acre of corn cost five hundred dollars if we don't harvest a crop because root worms or the weather is bad and takes out that crop it is devastating for all farmers furthermore through a slight change in the d n a the cell walls of the corn are not as rigid allowing animals to digest more of the plant this allow more nutrients for the animals per acre grown i am opposed to legislation that would require special labels for food and beverages that contain ingredients derived from biotechnology or genetically engineered crops there is no scientific basis to justify mandatory labeling it is soley on the basis of  regardless of the intent of pro labeling advocates mandatory labeling of biotechnology derived food would likely confuse and scare consumers it would provide no help  and would have significant negative effects on agricultural productivity resource use efficiency whether risk management farm or profitability and the environmental protection gains made possible by the action of biotechnology that does not even the cost that will be so much higher to purchase food current law provides for a science based regular tory program for agriculture biotechnology products by government agencies including the u s department of agriculture the e p a and f d a in the united states we have almost twenty years of experience in the use  the f d a has declared these ingredients to be of no material difference to conventionally producing greedy ants and therefore does not require special labeling they have stated that the labeling of products to indicate the presence of genetically engineering gradients would be inherently misleading to consumers just a second this is a hearing the only people we should be is the members of the assembly this is not a hearing for you to express your point of view here you're welcome to submit testimony i made an announcement the beginning and i can assure you that i'm taking the time out about the people we have fourteen witnesses and i for one don't intend to be here till midnight now if you can't control yourself please go outside thank you sorry go on the world health organization food and agriculture order organization of the united nations and many other independent scientific bodies have evaluated the safety of products of modern biotechnology including ingredients derived from them and have concluded that they are as safe as their conventional counterparts any change to our nation's food laws should be based upon credible scientific evidence and there is none that supports the labeling requirement thank you for allowing me to speak to you today thank you i do have a few questions the purpose of the hearing and as i've said a few times is really focused on the labeling requirement not on whether g m o's are good or bad i have my own opinions but that's not what i'm here to express today i want to focus on the labeling requirements that would be put forth in this bill should  become law we have a lot of it when you go buy food there are a lot of things on the labels right now now maybe some of them a federally mandated but there's a lot of information on foods calories carbohydrates sugar so on and so forth the specific ingredients whether it's kosher whether it's the deposit i take case of a soda or in carbonated beverages and i believe that in because new york in a few very small northeast asia would have a boutique label sensually that other states wouldn't have you that some manufacturers would have to increase the cost for spending that much money leaving a very small area of the country but why would that increase costs because they have different production lines or different times production i mean i can tell you and i'm not trying to be argumentative i'm just trying to understand this a few years ago when we were  changes in the bottle deposit law one of the arguments that was made to us against having the positive all was because it was that it would require different states to have different labels for some states have the positive laws some don't and if you look at a can of soda i think it in the case i think it indicates some states that have the possible but the point is the argument at that point was that we shouldn't have the posset laws because it increases costs and there was an overriding reason to have the bottle deposits that seem to be to most people be more important than whether there may or may not have been an increase in cost but so if this bill became law and it became the law in other states i think two words if i'm if i read the bill correctly would have to be added to a label just say genetically engineered am i correct but it seems to me that you're going to have to purchase enough product for new boxes of betty crocker cake mix and they're going to have to print a box just for new york state and can't get in there knocking at the printer from michigan or texas and so there you have to have a whole other paradigm hauler scheme for printing those special boxes well i mean i think i go shopping and i look at labels i very i really look at labels the in some products you can have different labels for that for the same product the pending upon where you buy them sometimes you see some of the information in two languages for example sometimes you don't and there are other differences i think that you would find for the same product in a different location depending upon the circumstances and i think i'm just having a little trouble understanding how having a different label different label would have any kind of real impact on the cause first of all who is here and he that the food is labeled correctly who's going to do all that sampling where is it going to come from that is going to increase the c have somebody test it to see if it's genetically engineered or not before you can even put it on a label if there is no testing done the labeling really is not effective well tell me if you disagree i think it's more likely somebody would omit the words genetically engineered if a food product contains genetically engineered food as opposed to a manufacturer putting the we engineered on the product if it weren't genetically engineered why would they do that it's marketing people are simply trying people might do it to get a marketing please i just i just want to understand this it's been argued to me that the mere words genetically engineered have a negative connotation if that's the case why would any manufacturer use those words if the said that you were concerned that consumers will be hard hit because they'll have to pay more for food that's that needs to be labeled because labeling will call cause the cost of g m o food to rise so you said they can buy organic if they don't want to but organic costs more so that seems to contradict your stated wish to keep lowered costs for for purchasers that testimony is written on behalf of a consumer who doesn't really have a valid ground valley who doesn't have a desire to purchase not you know but you know i'm i'm sure the most of the people in this audience would per prefer to pay less and know if there's g m o in their food so they don't have that option times poll and this is of of the country a huge i forget it's like ninety percent ninety five percent of people wish to see labeling i mean why why do you discount legally is is needed if they don't agree with us that's fine but sometimes but why isn't education as in this product has a g m o organisms in there in this doesn't why is that not part of the education concrete proof that all of these g m o products are safe because of some of the monsanto keeping proprietary information now you know that labels change all the time for example when  companies introduce a new product in new york they put new on the label then when they change it a bit they put improved sometimes they make it light l i t and they do this they don't have the same marketing strategy in every state they have different ones to appeal to different consumers so they make those changes all the time why do you contend that putting  tainted by is that fortunately there's a lot of misleading information out there the farmers haven't been able to tell their story and the perception from the public is that anything g m all our bio bio engineered is tainted and if we had to grow more of those types of food in new york state there would be less production which would then raise the cost of food to everybody and the seeds are not available so there would be a lot less food grown in new york state if you want it most people want to jam all frequently where do you get your seeds from we buy it from several different companies it doesn't make a difference  them is months yes as long a long with many others many others i mean months manto's bought up most of the seed companies in this country so what other ones are there well that's not that's not what i understand that you know there are more and more crops resistant to well on the ground that i'm not about to there are crops that are  and you miss chittenden seem to disparage consumers ability to understand labeling to understand science what you said before is that labeling would confuse consumers i no chemicals or pesticides inside roundup ready see it is basically taking a plant that had a d n a that was resist