Genetic Labeling: Take #2
The State of Vermont has passed a statute mandating the
labeling of genetically engineered foods as of July 1, 2016. Other states have
considered and are considering similar legislation. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed legislation to preempt all state legislation on the
labeling of genetic engineering. The Senate failed by a vote of 48-49 to
preempt the states, falling well short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
Several major companies have now made independent decisions
to label their products as made with genetic engineering given the vacuum left
by the Senate. They are making the best of a bad situation but the right
solution is still federal preemption coupled with a national system of
transparency. ConAgra made that point in their statement:
“ConAgra Foods will begin adding labels to products
nationwide by July 2016 to meet Vermont’s GMO labeling requirements. We stand
behind the health and safety of all of our products, including those with
genetically modified ingredients, and believe consumers should be informed as
to what’s in their food. But addressing state-by-state labeling requirements
adds significant complications and costs for food companies. With a multitude
of other states currently considering different GMO labeling requirements, the
need for a national, uniform approach in this area is as critical as ever.
That’s why we continue to urge Congress to pass a national solution as quickly
as possible.”
Those who support state labeling are not all of one mind or
motivation. Some advocates of state labeling do so because they support the
consumer’s right to know. Others, however, are using the labeling campaign and
the current labeling chaos to gain an economic advantage. Marketing is fair
game in business, but let’s recognize that some organic food companies link
their marketing claims to allegations of health and safety risks associated
with genetic engineering (Academics
Review, 2014).
There is a broad consensus in the scientific community that genetic
engineering is safe, as are the foods and food ingredients produced from
genetically engineered crops that are now in our food supply. It is imperative
that the best science, including genetic engineering, is available to increase
food production sustainably. The hang up, and it is a serious hang up, is how
to provide information to the public in a factual, straight-forward manner
without implying that GM foods are unsafe. Only the federal government,
speaking with one voice, can give the public confidence in genetic engineering.
The Senate vote last month failed because the right
compromise was not reached on how to provide information to consumers and
whether action should be mandated. It did not fail because Democratic Senators
support state labeling systems, with a few exceptions. Senator Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) supports the Vermont statute but most Democratic senators who voted
against federal preemption support the use of genetic engineering coupled with
transparency. How to achieve that transparency is the issue on the table.
The term “labeling” means different things to different
people. The FDA, for example, requires listing of food ingredients and nutrition
facts that have health implications on package labels. But the term is now
being used by Secretary Vilsack and others in a much larger context. It can
mean providing information to the consumer in a variety of ways.....a QR code, calling
an 800 number, or a web site. Consumers are seeking more information (on
everything) and not providing that information only creates suspicion.
In The Atlantic magazine this month, there is a fascinating
article entitled The Obama Doctrine. The article focuses on international
affairs and the president’s world view but may also be relevant to food
security. In part, the president says: “I believe that overall humanity has
become…healthier, better fed…but it’s hugely uneven.” He continued, “Right now,
across the globe, you’re seeing places undergoing severe stress because of
globalization…because of scarcities….because of population growth.” I suspect there would be bipartisan agreement
on this point.
Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) spoke for many Democrats when he
said: “The food and agriculture industry has made a compelling argument that,
in this case, a uniform national standard is necessary to avoid confusion
and increased cost in the marketplace as well as chaos in distribution
channels…..I support a national standard for GMO labeling provided that it is
paired with specific disclosure requirements that provide consumers with the
information they need to make an informed decision about the foods they eat.” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack again
stressed after the senate vote that “we need a national approach.”
The world will find it much more difficult, if not impossible,
to feed itself in the years ahead unless it continues to use the most modern
science to increase the food supply and make agriculture more sustainable. Transparency
is also important in modern America, so let’s not let the labeling debate undermine
public confidence in the use of sound science and become a barrier to progress.
The Senate needs to regroup before July 1 and move compromise
legislation forward. Take #2 is in order.
Marshall Matz, formerly Counsel to the Senate Select
Committee on Nutrition and the Committee on Agriculture, specializes in
agriculture and food security at OFW Law. He Chaired the Obama for President,
Committee on Agriculture and serves on the Boards of the World Food
Program—USA, the Congressional Hunger Center and the Food Research Action
Center.
#30
For more news,
go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
