Vanguard state: California might just lead the way on GMO labeling
Of course, I’m talking about labeling genetically modified foods
(GMOs). This is a timely topic because a GMO labeling proposition called
“The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” has officially qualified for the November ballot in California.
While it’s true that the California legislature has killed several
earlier attempts to pass a GMO labeling law (as also happened in
Washington, Connecticut, and Vermont), this version will be put directly
in front of voters. And as Richard Schiffman, writing for the U.K. Guardian, observes, that matters. His post reads:
What makes the referendum in California different is that, for the first time, voters and not politicians will be the ones to decide. And this has the food industry worried. Understandably so, since only one in four Americans is convinced that GMOs are “basically safe,” according to a survey conducted by the Mellman Group, and a big majority wants food containing GMOs to be labeled.
This is one of the few issues in America today that enjoys broad
bipartisan support: 89 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of
Democrats want genetically altered foods to be labeled, as they already
are in 40 European nations, as well as Brazil and China.
Of course, when Big Food gets nervous, it opens up its collective
wallet. And that’s exactly what’s expected in California. Schiffman
points to a blog post by referendum organizing group California Right to Know
that estimates food companies and their allies will spend upwards of
$100 million trying to defeat the ballot initiative. The battle has also
already been joined with two carefully named, industry-backed
“astroturf” groups leading the charge, the Coalition Opposed to the Costly Food Labeling Proposition and California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Much of the reporting on the issue has focused on the consumer “right
to know” aspect of the law — after all, it’s built into the name of the
bill itself. Indeed, when the debate over GMOs is covered by the media,
it’s often from the perspective of a scientific “consensus” that GMOs
are safe while consumers are needlessly concerned. It’s an easy stance
to take as long as you ignore the paucity of independent research on these foods and the limits biotech companies put on researchers who want access to their seeds.
Some coverage — like this piece on Slate
— claims the so-called death of the “Frankenfood” debate and puts a
spotlight on Europe. However, the recent E.U. decision rejecting a
French ban on a particular strain of GMO corn that prompted the post is
in fact a decision upholding a French court’s ruling on the ban from over a year ago. And the second grand development cited is the failure of an ill-considered anti-GMO activists’ plan to destroy an experimental GMO wheat plot in the U.K. To my mind, these don’t exactly add up to a pro-GMO movement.
If there’s a cooling in Europe on GMO issues, it’s likely because
European consumers have for years now had the ability to easily identify
foods with genetically modified ingredients. Because they’re labeled!
I was more distressed to see Slate repeat various pro-biotech myths —
such as the idea that an adoption of GMO crops has led to a reduction
in pesticide use — and cite out-of-date studies like this one by biotech industry consultants to back up the claim.
These anti-anti-Frankenfood analyses also tend to downplay the risks of GMOs to other farmers.
But in California, that argument matters. Organic agriculture is big
business in the Golden State — it’s got the most certified organic
acreage in the entire country with sales worth well over $1 billion annually.
Organic growers cannot by law use genetically modified ingredients —
the presence of GM residue above a certain level will cause farms to
lose their organic certification — but not all consumers are aware of
that fact.
Since most processed conventional foods contain ingredients derived from GMO corn or soy,
a labeling requirement would make the contrast between conventional and
organic products all the more noticeable. So when consumers start
avoiding the “contains GMOs” label, organic sales are very likely to go
up.
And the labeling law will help farmers in other ways. It may, for
example, help California’s agricultural exports, since many of our large
exports partners either require labeling of GMOs or won’t buy them at
all.
Labeling might even indirectly reduce the risk of contamination of
other crops by GMO cross-pollination — a phenomenon that has been seen
in everything from GMO canola to corn to alfalfa. Organic crops become
worthless once genetically contaminated. Labels could force Big Ag to
face the fact that it’s making something millions of Americans just
don’t want. And that may cause farmers to plant fewer acres of GMO crops
— thereby lessening the risk to their organic neighbors.
In short, while the food industry wants Californians to think GMO
labeling will have a major negative economic effect through “frivolous
lawsuits” and “increased food prices,” the effort seems more likely to
do the opposite, by improving the economics of one of the state’s most
important industries.
If there is real worry in the hearts of Big Food executives, it’s
because they know that what happens in California rarely stays in
California. Yes, this initiative may cause a wave of GMO labeling laws
and referenda to ripple across the country.
But it may be even simpler. The packaging that food companies use in
California — by far the most populous state in the country and thus the
largest market — will likely be the packaging they’ll use elsewhere. So
labeling for California might, just like that, turn into labeling for
the rest of us. All in all, it’s a pretty neat trick.
Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter.
Source: http://grist.org/food/vanguard-state-california-might-just-lead-the-way-on-gmo-labeling/
No comments:
Post a Comment