Friday, July 1 was a big day in Vermont! Act 120, Vermont’s GMO food label law is now in effect. Signed into law in 2014 after ten years of work, Act 120 requires that food producers selling products containing GMO’s label their products with that fact.
Friday, July 1 was a big day in Vermont! Act 120, Vermont’s GMO food label law is now in effect. Signed into law in 2014 after ten years of work, Act 120 requires that food producers selling products containing GMO’s label their products with that fact. According to Governor Peter Shumlin, “This is a true David and Goliath story, a small state fighting big food, big agriculture, big business and big money in Washington.” Vermont is the first state to have such a law, essentially making official the people’s right to know what they’re eating.
This has to be one of the hotter of the hot button issues in the news. Some people claim that GMO’s will be the end of us all, while others, the FDA included, swear that they’re as safe as mother’s milk. Let us assume, for the sake of this article, that the latter argument is true and GMO’s are truly safe. I don’t want to get into that debate here, but I do want to pose the following question:
If GMO’s are safe, why don’t companies want labeling?
One only needs look so far as the “gluten-free” movement to see that, if GMO’s are the next best thing, labeling products that contain GMO ingredients would only increase sales. As someone who is sensitive to gluten (but not a celiac), I promise you that the number of food products labeled “Gluten-free!” is beyond count. And I’m not just talking bread, my friends. There are products so obviously gluten-free that putting that phrase on the label can only be a marketing ploy to increase sales.
So, I ask it again:
If GMO’s are safe, why don’t companies want labeling?
One theory is that it costs too much to change the labels. Another is that it’s unfair to allow individual states to set their own standards. My personal favorite, however, is this one:
Labeling food as being “produced with genetic engineering” might give people the impression that the ingredients could be harmful.
Uh, yeah. Companies paid upwards of $5M dollars for a 30-second commercial spot during Super Bowl 50, according to CBS. But it’s too costly to change a label or to run an ad campaign promoting the benefits of GMO food to counteract any negative impression?
Neither side seems to have a firm grasp, despite FDA approval, of whether GMO’s will save us or kill us all. However, companies and grocery industry groups are dumping huge sums of money into fighting GMO labeling laws, such as Act 120; money that could be spent on, oh, labels or educational advertising.
I understand the issue is complex and my argument here could fall under reduction ad absurdum. There are contracts between GMO-producers and non-GMO stores and other suppliers that may be adversely affected. Some Vermont farmers, the majority of whom are in favor of Act 120, don’t like it because it may make livestock feed more expensive. After all, if you feed your cows GMO food, your beef can no longer be considered GMO-free.
Yes, the issue is complex. However, it seems to have at its root the Almighty Dollar (as do so many issues these days). Interesting then, the fact that Campbell’s, Mars, ConAgra, Kellogg’s and General Mills have come out of the GMO closet and agreed to put a GMO label on affected products. Even more interesting that each of these five companies says the cost of nationwide labeling won’t be added to the price at the grocery store. To me, that says the cost can’t be that much. After all, we know that companies like their bottom lines.
Vermont’s victory has also sparked some action in our nation’s capital. Weak as water action, but action nonetheless. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), both on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, have introduced a bill that would not only kill Act 120, but forbid states from enacting their own labeling laws.
Instead, citizens get a website, a toll-free number or QR codes that can be read by smart phones, rather than a simple phrase in English. Plus, there’s no penalty for companies that simply choose to ignore the law. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it, as well as being a horrible use of taxpayers’ money?
When one considers that Sen. Roberts got over $900,000 from agribusiness lobbyists and donors, it’s not really all that surprising. Neither is the Senator’s statement that, “Unless we act now, Vermont law denigrating biotechnology and causing confusion in the marketplace is the law of the land.”
Indeed. As I said, it’s a complex issue. At its heart, you will not find the safety or even concerns of the American people. Instead, you will find money flowing from Big Ag and its lobbyists with the express intent of protecting corporate bottom lines.
Sources:
Join the conversation!