An Argument in Favor of a Federal GMO Labeling Law

A Federal GMO Labeling Law

GMO Definition

A genetically modified organism (GMO) results when a gene from one species in inserted into another. Technology such as gene blasting and the use of viruses and bacteria is used to insert DNA from one species into the other in a lab. GMO for our purposes refers to the resulting crop, animal or ingredient in the case of processed food products. GMOs are not a result of breeding to create different characteristics within a species. Examples of GMOs are fish genes being used to create tomatoes and strawberries that are tolerant to frost. Immediately, we can see allergy concerns among many other health consequences. The GMOs of most concern now are Bt corn (designed to have built in pesticide), Roundup Ready soy (designed to tolerate herbicide), rbGH milk (milk from cows injected with a growth hormone) cotton, canola and sugar beets.

Have GMOs Been Proven Safe?

The bulk of the studies have been on animals rather than humans although the predominant human study did show that the GMOs survive in the human stomach. Animal studies have indicated strong correlations with cellular anomalies, pre-cancerous growths, shorter lifespan, liver damage. The rbGH hormone in milk causes an increase in the human hormone IGF-1 a primary cause of breast cancer. Examining the timing of GMOs sweeping the markets, huge increases in allergies, obesity, autism, celiac disease and a variety of other illnesses correlate. Animals grazing on GMO crops have had increased death rates, and various GMOs like the original FlavrSavr tomato were pulled from the market. See a list of possible health risks with footnotes / links to studies.  And see an overview of the science. While the research suggesting danger clearly trumps the research (primarily industry-funded) suggesting safety, the real issue is that the onus was never on the government or the manufacturer to prove safety. We dove in headfirst and by 1996 GMOs were the predominant sweeping ingredients in our processed food supply relied on by many. Most processed foods either because of a corn ingredient (corn syrup or modified corn starch) or a soy ingredient (isolated soy protein, soy lecithin) included at least one GMO ingredient.

Introduction

Presently, there is no uniform federal guide to labeling GMOs. Many companies, large and small, organic natural and not so organic and natural do voluntarily frequently confirm products are non-GMO much to the chagrin of the companies producing and selling GMOs. Also, to be deemed USDA organic, a product must be free of GMOs. The FDA could easily set forth a simple law mandating labeling so that produce, animal products, and processed foods list GMO ingredients as such. As we have seen in states that have tried to pass GMO labeling laws, the industries profiting the most from the sales of GMO ingredients oppose the legislation vehemently. And, they have a considerable amount of money and clout to throw into the fight. Nonetheless, Vermont adopted a GMO labeling law last year. (See the full text of the Vermont Law) But as we saw in Washington State last year, large food producers and Monsanto teamed up to defeat a similar bill and are expected to finance large campaigns bashing labeling requirements on the ballot in California and Oregon this fall.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act (HR 1699) introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (Democrat, California) and Rep. Peter Defazio (Democrat, Oregon) in 2013 seeks to universally label GMOs with a few limited exceptions. The bill would catapult the US to the rest of the developed world as far as labeling requirements and would allow consumers to have the information necessary to make an educated purchasing decision. The bill, introduced last year is still under consideration. On September 16, 2014 Sen. Jack Reed (Democrat, Rhode Island) joined to co-sponsor the bill.

While the federal government has yet to act, a bill proposing the exact opposite, a bill that would almost create a federal prohibition on labeling GMOs by preempting all state laws passed on GMO labeling is being introduced and supported by the very makers of Round-up, the junk food industry and those food companies that stand to profit the most from the sale of GMOs. While they universally (and contrary to significant peer-reviewed scientific research) attest that GMOs are safe, it is certainly suspicious that they fear labeling laws so much. Rep. Mike Pompeo (Republican, Kansas) introduced the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, an act designed to undermine labeling requirements. See  Rep. Mike Pompeo’s website in which he wrongly assumes the established safety of GMOs and elicits a cursory statement of presumed safety and states incorrectly that they create higher yields with fewer pesticides. The act would allow the FDA to require labeling only if they can show a material difference from the food they derive from. While obviously there is a material difference, the fact that the GMO resembles the original in looks, taste, and texture has always been enough. Thus, for the most part, the FDA would be precluded from requiring labeling unless it proves the substantial difference and then it can act only in the interest of public health and safety, i.e., only if the item is proven harmful. Thus, as now, the standard of proof of harm will always be hanging out of reach and the concept of proof of safety will be completely ignored.  The bill also uses language that the FDA can act to prevent confusion, the implication being consumers are too stupid to know what is good for them and should thus be protected from the GMO labeling because (in the eyes of the congressman) GMOs are not dangerous. The implication that saying corn is GMO corn on a Fritos label will make someone suspicious of that corn is not an excuse to sell ignorance and hide information. See the bill full text of HR 4432. 

Sixty four countries require labeling of GMOs. Ninety per cent of Americans polled are in favor of labeling GMOs. Many consumer organizations as well as food producers supported the Barbara Boxer (HR1699) See a list on Sen. Boxer's 2013 press release. The US failure to act is backwards and inappropriate and driven by the political power of the companies that bioengineered the crops, seeds and the pesticides and herbicides to which they are immune. As of now, they have successfully impeded the adoption of state and federal laws requiring labeling.

Two Environmental Law Principles of a Strong Environmentally Sound Democracy

The Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle is merely the idea that in certain situations of scientific uncertainty, playing it safe is the best approach. Countries relying on a precautionary principle require proof of safety before allowing marketing. The US does not play it safe even in the field of FDA law where many ingredients in food, including GMOs, are generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”). GRAS is in essence, the very opposite of the precautionary principle. Because in the case of GMOs the FDA deemed the final product to be substantially similar to the natural original, any GMO can be marketed and sold without significant proof of its safety. The FDA is free to disregard the gene blasting and the bacteria used to insert the foreign gene into the DNA because the end product, for example, a soybean, or an ear of corn, alfalfa sprouts, etc., looks the same as its non-GMO counterpart. But, the very process is the problem. And the end result is damaging, unhealthy and harmful to consumers, organic growers, those working in the fields exposed to record amounts of Round-up and to new types of harmful pollen creating toxins in the air. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the US Patent office protects Monsanto’s technology and seeds, a protection afforded only to those who can show what is different about their technology and product. If these were substantially similar plants they would not be protected by patents at all.

To further muddy the waters, the FDA has accepted industry research funded completely by Monsanto as the basis for continuing the GRAS treatment of GMOs. There is ample evidence that people at the FDA have documented ill health effects of GMOs but have not been able to have their voices heard against the loud voice of Monsanto. Under a precautionary principle, one would hope that any scientific research would be independent. However, Monsanto has a track record of quieting those that come up with independent research. Nonetheless, there is significant peer-reviewed scientific literature finding causal connections between GMOs and a variety of health issues.

In some countries, GMOs are not approved for use or are very limited in scope. The European Union used the precautionary principle to have an outright ban on GMOs and then, as increased scientific data became available, the EU, under significant political pressure, moved toward allowing certain GMOs, requiring labels from the beginning.

Recognizing it is too late to invoke the precautionary principle as not only are GMOs rampant in our food supply but many extraneous fields, even those of organic farms have been polluted by GMO infiltration through pollen, we can still at the very least provide information.

The Right to Know

Introducing a federal clear law requiring GMO labeling would further the public’s “right to know”, a long-standing tradition shaping laws surrounding disclosure especially in the area of the environment. In US law, the right to know is often the statutory basis protecting consumers’ rights to make educated purchasing decisions.

Every existing labeling law is based on this concept. The new laws requiring calorie counts on the menus of chain restaurants in New York and the Affordable Care Act is another more recent example. Continual evolution of labeling laws demonstrates that in a consumer-driven democracy this right to know is crucial. The right to know was more traditionally used in general environmental law so that people could find out what polluters were putting into their air and water. ( See EPCRA background and information.)

The right to know is a part of the very essence of our environmental protections; it is the limitation of corporate control over political decisions, it is anti-graft and as applied to food, it ensures that corporations cannot slip things in or hide ingredients.

Background of States’ Progress

Last year, Vermont adopted a bill that requires the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and did so including a fund to ward off and to finance law suits. The Grocery Manufacturers Association  (GMA), an organization of large junk food manufacturers, Monsanto and other large pesticide and herbicide producers and biosciences companies, is suing Vermont now.

This year, Oregon and Colorado have labeling laws on their ballot. Another success like the one in Vermont is a crucial step in demonstrating support for a federal measure. In fact, polls show that the general public strongly supports labeling GMOs. 

In California, various localities voted to ban GMOs in the early 2000s. Mendocino County, Ca. was the first in the US to ban their cultivation, followed by Trinity, Marin, and Monterey counties. Then, a state law passed outlawing those ordinances. In 2012, California voters had the opportunity to vote on a statewide GMO labeling bill (Prop 37) but a $44 million campaign against prop 37 financed by Monsanto and large food corporations including Hershey’s resulted in a narrow victory for those opposing labeling.

Outside of California, in 2008 Montville, Maine passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of GMO crops. The states with referendums and ballot measures tend to be those where small grassroots movements started in GMO free communities that wanted to protect themselves from cross-pollination.

Most states have at the very least a grassroots organization aiming to ban or label GMOs. See a quick list here provided by just label it.

A lot of states have farmers and growers rather than consumers leading the way. The risk to organic growers is significant because the cross pollination can not only endanger their USDA organic status but for a while those farmers felt vulnerable to Monsanto’s patent infringement law suits. The Supreme Court recently acted in Monsanto’s favor denying to review the DC Circuit’s finding that the plaintiffs (a group of farmers) cannot prohibit Monsanto from suing them for patent infringement based solely on the inadvertent cross pollination. Monsanto did offer assurances that it would not sue for infringement in the inadvertent cases. See Organic Seed Growers and Traders Association v. Monsanto 718 F. 3rd 1350 (Federal Circuit); 134 S. Ct. 901 (2014) (cert. denied).

Any movement to stop Monsanto or to have GMO-free areas or labeling laws seems to be easily squashed by the industry. Grassroots movements have led to Vermont’s victory but a federal law would give every consumer his right to know.

Why Not Label? 

Profits seem to be the only motivation to be against labeling laws. Monsanto, the primary developer of both seeds and of Round-up Weed Killer (a glyphosate based product to be used with Monsanto’s “Round-up Ready” crops), is part of the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA), the corn syrup lobby and a few others vehemently oppose labeling laws because they believe sales will suffer. We do not tend to see outrage by any consumer group or by the public in general, unassociated with these profiteering companies. The GMA cites a bunch of editorials as if they were science and makes a big effort to ensure the public that GMOs are safe. Do we really want the information to come from those making billions of dollars from the GMO production, use, sales etc.? Some of the weak editorials to which they refer are not science-based but are arguments for taking corporate profits into consideration when deciding whether or not to label. See GMAs link to fact sheet which lists various editorials. 

Should profits and sales be part of the discussion? Labeling laws on all other items from cigarette warnings to lists of ingredients are issues appropriate for the government. The undue influence wielded by corporations over the FDA, USDA and other governmental agencies makes conflict of interest more common than independent science-based research and conclusions. Considering health risks and environmental impact are appropriate where corporations’ profits are not an appropriate factor to be weighed in the discussion.

The Feed the World argument

The evidence that GMOs produce more food is weak at best. More food of a less quality in our country where obesity dwarfs starvation is no argument for GMOs at all. But, in other parts of the world is biotechnology an important component of increasing the food supply? It appears not to be. The leading  committee paper on global agriculture (The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report) sponsored by a global initiative including UNESCO, WHO, the World Bank and the FAO did not include GMOs as a significant resource in its long term strategy to secure a global food supply. After evaluating fifty years of agriculture the consensus among the world’s independent experts is that biotechnology is not the answer. See United Nations Environment Program. And for background research see the discussion of GMOs in Food Security, The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People by H.Charles J Godray, et al., Science (2010) which takes a neutral position but addresses both positives and negatives describing GMOs as “potentially valuable” if health and environmental safety are demonstrated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the onus should have been on the producers, sellers or the government itself to provide independent peer-reviewed large scale evidence of the safety of GMOs prior to marketing them, the labeling effort is a mere consolation prize that must be had. In keeping with the principles of a right to know and in accordance with our other food labeling laws, it is appropriate and necessary to have federally mandated labeling of GMOs. Corporate economic factors should not be considered in the labeling controversy. Consumers deserve to codify their right to know.