An Urban's Rural View

Seed companies, food makers and grocery chains have opened their wallets to combat Washington state's Initiative 522, which would require the labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. According to Ballotpedia (http://tiny.cc/…), Monsanto has spent $5.4 million on the cause, which voters will decide November 5. Pepsi has chipped in $1.6 million.

A Politico story the other day (http://tiny.cc/…) had Coke and Pepsi contributing more than a million bucks apiece to a Grocery Manufacturers Association campaign against 522. Things may go better with Coke, but the Coca-Cola company doesn't think Coke will sell better if the bottles are labeled genetically engineered.

A great many processed foods contain high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, sugar from sugar beets or other ingredients that in most cases these days come from genetically engineered plants. Politico cited an estimate by Nestle, another big anti-522 contributor, that 70% to 80% of the foods Americans eat contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Which makes you wonder: If practically everything in the store is labeled GE, will consumers really insist on buying only those few items that aren't? Will a label really tempt fans of the world's best-selling sodas to give them up? How well founded are the companies' fears?

To raise these questions is not to support 522. It is to say that if there's going to be a labeling requirement, it should be national. It makes no sense to require manufacturers to label the same product differently in different states. That way lies chaos.

And different requirements are indeed the likely outcome of state labeling laws. Even when two states both require labeling they might mandate different verbiage.

For example, if 522 passes next week, many processed foods would have to be labeled "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering." The label would have to appear "clearly and conspicuously" on the front of the package.

At the other end of the country, Connecticut's new labeling law—which, to be sure, won't take effect until some other states pass similar legislation—calls for "produced with genetic engineering." No "partially." Could food makers get away with the same label in Connecticut and Washington state? They probably wouldn't want to chance it.

And what if still another state's law talks of genetically modified ingredients, or GMOs, instead of genetically engineered ingredients? Laws are like computers: literal-minded. A manufacturer couldn't assume the different phraseology wouldn't matter.

Or what if a particular state decided to specify a certain type size? Or a particular position on the front of the package? The list of possible stipulations for ensuring the message's prominence is as limitless as lawmakers' imaginations.

A single national standard would restore sanity and allow food makers to put the same label on the same product nationwide. Backers of state labeling laws probably wouldn't object to a national standard. Some may even -- forgive the cynicism, please -- be pushing for state laws in hopes of creating the labeling chaos a federal standard would solve.

A more basic question is whether any labeling requirement, state or federal, is a good idea. Proponents say, "We have a right to know what's in our food." Opponents insist labeling would scare consumers and make them shun food products that are perfectly safe.

I agree with the critics' premise but not their conclusion. By my reading of the debate, there's a strong scientific consensus that GMOs are safe. Some scientists disagree, but they're very much in the minority.

Even so, I find it hard to argue with the notion that those who disagree with me should not be forced to guess what's in their food. Though I think they're wrong to worry about it I support their right to the information.

But, please. If we're going to give them that information, let's do it the same way everywhere.

Urban Lehner
urbanity@hotmail.com

(SK)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.