The labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is quickly becoming one of the most hotly debated food policy issues across the county and for good reason. In the absence of federal leadership, states have led the way by passing mandatory legislation intended to prevent consumer deception and give consumers the right to know what they are buying and feeding their families.
It is clear that the food movement, supported by millions of voters and thousands of grassroots leaders across the country, has made GE labeling one if it’s top priories for 2015. What isn’t clear is how the Obama administration and Congress intend to heed the call of American families.
Currently, 64 countries have policies requiring the labeling of GE foods, including all our trading partners in Asia, the European Union and even countries where GE crops are a large part of the economy, like Brazil. While there may be universal agreement on labeling abroad, here in the U.S. a handful of multinational agribusiness and food corporations have spent over $100 million to block state labeling initiatives.
As a result of this outpouring of cash to defeat labeling, a number of myths intended to defeat state labeling efforts have now begun to infiltrate the halls of Capitol Hill.
Myth 1:
The first myth is that American consumers will see a huge spike in food prices if companies are required to disclose the GE ingredients that are already in their products. Yet companies change their labels all the time without causing a spike in the price of food. In fact, most companies don’t print labels more than one year in advance for regulatory or marketing purposes. The establishment of a mandatory labeling standard for GE foods could easily fall within a company’s regular label refresh cycle.
Myth 2:
The second myth we hear is that farmers are opposed to mandatory labeling. While some may oppose labeling, major farm groups like the National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition and the National Black Farmers Association support mandatory labeling and have opposed legislation intended to block state laws in the absence of a national standard. With mandatory labeling there will be no new financial cost to farmers, and given that food companies already produce foods for a variety of markets there should not be additional segregation costs. Rather the information that is alreadybeing captured within the food supply chain will simply be provided to consumers on the end product.
Myth 3:
The third myth is that we can rely on voluntary measures alone. In the 14 years that FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label foods produced using genetic engineering, not one single company has done so. Similarly, we cannot merely rely on the use of voluntary absence claims like “GMO-Free.” While such marketing claims allow companies to distinguish themselves in the marketplace, they are not a substitution for mandatory disclosure because consumers are not given the full universe of information. Creating a federal standard for voluntary marketing claims will do nothing to address the overwhelming demand for labeling and likewise will do nothing to address consumer confusion that has festered in the absence of mandatory labeling.
Myth 4:
The fourth myth we hear is that we cannot label GE foods because they are not dangerous. But in the U.S. we don’t label dangerous food; we take it off the shelf. Rather, foods produced using genetic engineering are fundamentally different at the molecular and genetic level than those produced using conventional breeding methods. Mandatory labeling of GE foods is essential for preventing consumer deception and will allow consumers to make informed choices about the products they are buying and feeding their families.
Fact:
What is lost in these industry-driven myths is the fundamental issue of equality. Food issues can all-too-often turn into issues of class. All Americans deserve to know what they are buying and feeding their families, regardless of where you shop and where you live.
This hearing should not be a platform for industry to repeat debunked myths. Rather it’s time for Congress to provide leadership on an issue that matters to every American. Any costs would be negligible and the benefits of labeling are numerous. Look to legislation introduced earlier this year by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer
Barbara BoxerBoxer, Feinstein endorse Kamala Harris in two-Dem Senate race Dems gain upper hand on budget Overnight Finance: Senate rejects funding bill as shutdown looms | Labor Dept. to probe Wells Fargo | Fed to ease stress test rules for small banks MORE (D-Calif.). Their legislation would establish a national labeling standard that responsibly balances the right of consumers to know what they are buying and feeding their families with the need of food companies for a uniform labeling standard.
O'Neil is director of Government Affairs at the Center for Food Safety.
