Report: U.S. doesn't need mandatory GMO labeling
WASHINGTON, April 28, 2014 – A new report
from the Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) used public polling, food safety
and testing data and philosophical and legal evaluations to determine that
mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) food would increase food costs
and have “negative implications” for First Amendment rights.
The report also concludes there is no science-based reason
to single out genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for labeling and finds that
GMOs are safe for human consumption.
CAST says the report is response to “seemingly
contradictory” studies on labeling, some of which are funded by groups with
stakes in the debate. The paper’s authors call for a renewed dialogue on GMO
issues, which would include a reenergized push for independent and fact-based
studies on the issue.
“Independent objective information on the scientific issues
and the possible legal and economic consequences of mandatory GE food labels
need to be provided to legislators and consumers…to help move the national
discussion from contentious claims to a more fact-based and informed dialog,”
the authors write.
Though the report does not present an estimate for the costs
of mandatory food labels, it finds that costs would vary widely depending on
how food manufacturers respond to a hypothetical labeling rule from the FDA.
Companies could choose to simply label their products and keep their formulas
as they are now – that’s the least expensive option. But firms could also
decide to change their products to avoid labels, shifting away from GMO
ingredients and changing well-established sourcing and supply chains.
The report also touches upon state mandatory labeling laws,
just as Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin is poised to sign the country’s first
mandatory GM label law this week. (Connecticut
and Maine
have passed laws that would mandate labeling in their states only if four
contiguous states created similar legislation.)
“[S]tate mandatory labeling laws may be invalidated for
conflicting with preemptive federal authority and may also violate First
Amendment rights,” the report’s authors write. But courts that invalidate state
laws will be viewed as hostile to consumers’ wishes. “Litigation seems a likely
outcome,” the report concludes – an assertion borne out by recent statements
from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has said it will
attempt to reverse Vermont’s law in court.
#30
For more news, visit www.agri-pulse.com.