BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The GMO Labeling Fight Has Nothing To Do With Information -- On Either Side

Following
POST WRITTEN BY
Omri Ben-Shahar
This article is more than 8 years old.

As more states pass mandatory GMO labeling laws, Congress has been trying to take action to unify the potpourri of local statutes. Sensing that the populist tide for labeling is sweeping through many states, the House passed in 2015 the Republican-led Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, only to see the Senate (mostly Democrats) voting to defeat a similar bill by a 49:48 vote.

Opponents to Congress’ bill, led by Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy, denounce the proposed federal legislation as the “DARK Act”—Deny Americans the Right to Know. The bill, they correctly say, would block state’s efforts to mandate labeling, replacing them instead with a meek regime of voluntary labels. Rather than enact a bill that reeks from industry meddling, opponents want Congress to step aside, thus leaving in tact the first-in-the-nation Vermont law that, starting July 2016, would require GMO foods to be conspicuously labeled.

Subterfuge on both sides

The debate over state or federal GMO labeling laws is abundantly full of doublespeak and misinformation—a particular irony given the dedication of both sides in this debate to a “right to know” and “accurate” labeling.

The goals of both sides in this fight have nothing to do with knowledge, truth or information as a platform for wise food consumption decisions. Rather, the battle is over food technology, shrewdly (but disingenuously) cloaked as over disclosure laws. The debate ought to be won by recognizing the overwhelming value of GMO foods and alleviating unfounded fears. Instead, it is about to won subversively, by softly killing the labeling campaign.

There is subterfuge on both sides, but it all begins with state ballot initiatives to mandate GMO labeling, citing adverse health and environmental effects of GMO food. Narrowly defeated in California, Oregon and Colorado, Right to Know acts passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine, with numerous others in the referendum pipelines. A better name for this disclosure campaign is “the right not to know.”

The right not to know

It is the right not to know that there is no evidence whatsoever for any adverse effects; not to know that production of GMO foods is far more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture; not to know that biodiversity is served, rather than reduced, by the GMO economy; and not to know all the benefits GMO foods can deliver, which are desperately needed worldwide.

These facts have been documented convincingly by numerous scientific groups, but they are hard to explain. It is difficult to dispel worries about frightening “frankenfoods,” however unfounded. To uninformed audiences, “genetically engineered” sounds like a warning. Preying on irrational fears, labeling can distort rather than inform consumer decisions. When prompted by explicit survey questions, up to 93% of Americans indeed say they want GMO foods labeled. But unprompted, when asked if they want any information added to food labels, only 4% mention GMO. Which figure—93% versus 4%—should inform lawmaking?

Congress’ Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

Information manipulation is also the strategy of the political camp opposing GMO labeling. The bill that passed through the House but was defeated by the Senate is a smokescreen. The bill is alleged to replace a “patchwork” of state labeling mandates that makes compliance too burdensome for national food producers. The truth is that state laws and bills are fairly uniform. Compliance cost is not the reason for the federal legislation. It is a drop in the bucket relative to the industry’s potential lost sales due to the warning labels.

Congress’ bill prohibits even the federal government from mandating GMO labeling unless there is a “material difference in the functional, nutritional, or compositional characteristics” compared to its conventional counterparts. Since there is currently no evidence for such differences, this provision spells the death for mandated GMO labeling.

The rise of voluntary labels

But this prohibition would not stop the anti-GMO movement. GMO foods could be equally exposed by voluntary labels: You can tell if a product contains GMOs by requiring an affirmative label, but you can also tell if others are labeled “not containing GMOs.” The “not containing” labels need not be required by the government—they pop up in the market. Think of “organic,” “fair trade,” “low fat”—all voluntary labels. Without any labeling requirement, the non-GMO label is gaining following by the likes of Whole Foods and Chipotle, and could be just as damaging to GMO food production.

This is where Congress’ bill became crafty. It defined “non-GMO” in a highly forgiving manner, far from what GMO purists would have liked. For example, meat produced from livestock that consumed GMO feed, or products manufactured using GMO microorganisms could still count as non-GMO. If such Corporate non-GMO labels populate the supermarkets, they would neuter the entire labeling apparatus. The label would lose much of its meaning. Historically, this is exactly what the law did to the “organic” label. Once, organic was a staple of farmer market quality. But after the definition was politically regulated, organic became Corporate Organic, watered down by exceedingly lenient standards, monitored by a board with strong industry ties.

How to win the fight for GMO foods

The fight for GMO foods is to advance scientific progress—a fight to feed a growing world and cure diseases. GMOs are needed most by those who have least, the hungriest. It is a battle that should be won by showing the evidence, by explaining the merits of bio-technology, and by discrediting the false notion that there is something nasty to “know” about GMO food. Unfortunately, these strategies cannot keep up with the allure of superfluous right-to-know chants.

Also on Forbes:

Mr. Ben-Shahar is also co-author of “More than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure” (Princeton University Press), which will be re-issued in paperback this month.