An Urban's Rural View

No Biotech Labeling, for Now at Least

Urban C Lehner
By  Urban C Lehner , Editor Emeritus
Connect with Urban:
@urbanize

The seed companies and food companies are breathing easier. They put tens of millions into defeating Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of food containing genetically engineered ingredients. On Election Day California voters rejected it 54%-46%.

Something tells me this isn't the end of the story. Don't rule out the possibility that a less flawed version of the initiative might fare better in the future.

As I explained in my October 8 post (http://bit.ly/…) I have mixed feelings about Proposition 37. I share its supporters' view that Americans have the right to know what's in their food. I share the seed and food companies' view that there's no reason not to buy food that's genetically engineered.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Were I registered in California, I'd have voted "no" for the reasons outlined in the Los Angeles Times' editorial opposing the initiative. The paperwork burden on retailers and the enforcement by shakedown lawsuits were, I thought, serious flaws.

Assume, for a moment, that I'm not alone in my mixed feelings -- that some reasonable chunk of those who voted against Proposition 37 might, like me, have supported a better-drafted initiative. If those who pushed 37 believe there's something to that assumption, they might be tempted to try again. Next time the outcome could be different.

Economists and good-government advocates have long agreed that when it comes to information, more is better. Wherever you look in American society the trend has been for more openness and disclosure. The pressure for labeling is only likely to grow.

Labeling opponents' fears aren't unreasonable. Consumers could needlessly be dissuaded from buying food that's perfectly safe for human consumption and, on balance, healthy for the environment. States could enact conflicting labeling requirements, senselessly complicating an already complicated food-distribution system.

The companies have a choice. They can continue fighting to forestall change or they can try to get ahead of it. If they act before being required to, they could shape the details of disclosure. Imagine the label declaring, "Contains genetically engineered ingredients, which the National Academy of Sciences says are safe for human consumption."

It's not likely to say anything like that if voters pass a ballot initiative requiring labeling.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com

Previous Post (Competitive Advantage in Agriculture)
Next Post (Taxing Fat) 
P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Ric Ohge
11/8/2012 | 10:12 AM CST
In their "Victory", Monsanto bought/won a battle, but must expect it to be a "Pyrrhic" victory, as they've awakened a consciousness in America by doing so. As our children are the most vulnerable of the "combatants", they should warily consider the possibility that those Mothers, once aroused can become "the Hounds of Hell" in coming days. The Science and Tech behind the Patents they've fought to protect are approaching 30 years of age...oh, yes, they've done some updating and have added or "stacked" traits as the Resistance Factors expand among the weeds, but as anyone who watches Technology and/or reads hard science knows, the knowledge base has evolved, deepened and grown alongside the technology it creates. There have been over a dozen new discoveries that change our understanding of the science of cellular process, the Japanese Government is coming clean about how much worse Fukushima was, as our own Government, through the USDA is "suddenly championing Soil Renewal", just one of the "talking points" included in a summary I sent to Monsanto months ago. Biotech COULD hold all the promise we've been told, but to accomplish it, it needs five years of intensive research and development to create new patented traits that will stand up to the severest scrutiny. Less is unacceptable. Monsanto needs to absolutely define itself as an AMERICAN Company-and doing what's BEST is how we, as Americans, roll. St Louis and the world needs for this to work-so stepping back and "stepping up" is how Monsanto can accomplish a stated goal, regaining and expanding a truly Global Market. By the same token, the American Farmer needs to be the undisputed leadership in Global Agriculture, with Leaders, both Private and Political, that removes barriers, rather than creating them. Doing this positions America to be a Global Leader for this century and beyond.