In honor of Earth Day I applaud the Vermont state senate for passing H.112, a law requiring mandatory labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Historic as that is, the law also outlaws the labeling of such foods as “natural” or “all-natural.” Those of us who care about such things have understood for a long time that the word “natural” means absolutely nothing. A product carrying such a label may contain not only GMOs but also any number of toxic chemicals.
But before we do a victory dance in the end zone, it should be noted that Monsanto can sue Vermont and, win or lose, it may lobby for a federal law that prohibits any state from passing GMO labeling laws. Trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, currently under consideration in Congress for “fast track” authority, also could make this illegal.
By contrast, the European Union has had mandatory labeling laws for GMOs in effect since 1997. The only exception is for imported grains fed to animals, which are still allowed. Around the world, 60 countries either ban outright or require labeling of GMO ingredients in food. Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws but they contain a trigger that prevents them from going into effect until other (surrounding) states pass similar laws. Vermont’s law has no such trigger.
California and Washington state had ballot initiatives that were narrowly defeated after the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) funded ads opposing the proposed bills. Oregon voters seem likely to pass a similar ballot initiative in November.
According to an essay written by Ronnie Cummins and Stan Cox for the Organic Consumers Association, “gene giants including Monsanto appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional and less controversial cross breeding and hybrid seed sales.”
They are, however, not abandoning products in production such as Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops and are continuing development of crops using 2,4-D (once known as Agent Orange) and others such as apples that don’t turn brown when sliced and trees genetically engineered to grow really fast.
Consumers have a problem with these products because they aren’t tested for long-term safety and undesired side effects by the USDA, FDA or any other governmental agency. It is left to the developers to prove safety, usually after they are in the marketplace.
Until now, consumers who wish to avoid GMOs can do so only by sticking to foods labeled Certified Organic and eschewing processed foods altogether. Corporate agribusiness is supporting the “Ag Gag” state laws that criminalize photographing or filming on factory farms and lobbying for state laws that take away counties’ and local communities’ rights to regulate agricultural practices.
A bill scripted by the GMA and named “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” was introduced in the House by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) in early April. It would outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and continue use of “natural” on genetically altered and heavily pesticide-laden products.
Remember when the Farm Bill was working its way through Congress last spring? Katherine Paul informed us then that 71 U.S. senators voted against an amendment that would have guaranteed states the right to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws even as 90 percent of consumers supported it in polls. The 71 senators included 43 Republicans, defenders of so-called states rights, included in our Constitution’s 10th amendment “to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and local businesses.”
The OCA essay lists three major issues that drive the anti-GMO and pro-organic food movement in this country:
1) Scientific evidence of harm from toxic pesticides, chemicals and genetic constructs that accompany them are hazardous.
2) GMO crops are the force driving our system of industrial agriculture, factory farms and highly processed junk foods.
3) Fraudulent “natural” labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives.
Anyone who has witnessed harried shoppers trying to figure out what labels mean for the health of their families knows that No. 3 is absolutely true. Driven by thrift, consumers have heeded warnings that “Organic” means expensive but that’s not always so. Witness the proliferation of farmers markets across the country where shoppers seek safe, nutritious and locally grown foods at reasonable prices.
So in the name of honesty in labeling, contact both local and federal politicians and give them an earful. Some responded to GMA money, but votes are what they most need.