An Urban's Rural View

The proponents didn't concede quickly or gracefully, but in the end Washington state voters rejected I-522, a ballot initiative to require labeling of genetically-engineered foods. Finally admitting defeat, the "Yes on 522" forces went out lobbing rhetorical hand grenades at the grocery and food companies that had funded the "no" campaign to the tune of more than $20 million:

"Spending more money than ever before spent in a Washington state ballot measure contest, out-of-state pesticide and junk food industries funded a campaign of lies that deceived Washington voters in this election, leaving consumers in the dark about what is in groceries they are buying and eating."

As a supporter of biotechnology who also believes in the consumer's right to know, I deplore this rhetoric. At the same time, I admit the intensity of the food and grocery companies' fear of labeling puzzles me. Is defeating it really worth tens of millions? Are American consumers really so afraid of the big bad GMOs?

When I last blogged on I-522, just before the November 5 vote, (http://tiny.cc/…), reader Curt Zingula responded with an astute comment. Label non-GMOs, he wrote, because "they're not subject to all the research and regulation that insures the GMOs must be safe."

Labeling non-GMOs, I'd add, wouldn't require legislation. Food makers can do it any time they want to. Indeed, some already mark their packages "GMO-free." But not many do, and the question is why.

Consider: The food companies that use transgenic ingredients must think admitting that fact will lose them sales. The implication is these companies believe Americans care whether their food has been genetically engineered. If that's true, a non-GMO label should boost sales.

It would seem, then, that some non-GMO food companies are passing up a sales opportunity. They're free to label their products GMO-free but they don't. Why not? The most intriguing explanation is that they disagree that there's a sales opportunity. They don't think labeling would help sales. They don't think Americans care whether their food is genetically engineered.

Which raises the question: Which set of companies is right about consumers? As paradoxical as it may seem, maybe both. The difference is time frame. The non-GMO food makers are focused on what Americans believe today: Even those who say they don't want biotech food don't seem terribly worried about it. The companies that use transgenic ingredients, on the other hand, fear what Americans will think tomorrow, after they see the biotech disclosure appearing prominently on the front of the package.

In other words, a "non-GMO" label might not attract a lot of sales today, but a "genetically engineered" label could still hurt sales tomorrow. It could change attitudes, scaring Americans into thinking there's something wrong with genetic engineering. Shoppers could be forgiven for thinking, "If the government requires them to disclose it on the package, there must be something wrong with it."

It would be too bad if mandatory labeling laws had that result. But the companies that use transgenic ingredients need a smarter strategy for heading that result off. They need to recognize that labeling is coming -- sooner or later some state or states will demand it, and the federal government will be forced to step in.

Instead of just fighting state labeling campaigns and supporting voluntary disclosure, they should be proselytizing for a federal labeling requirement that discloses without flashing a warning signal. They should be pushing for specificity in the disclosure and against large-type, front-of-the-package generalities, like I-522 called for.

The right kind of label would put transgenic ingredients where they belong, in the ingredients list, paralleling fat and sodium and carbohydrates. A truly informative and helpful label might even specify which ingredients are genetically engineered, with which traits, and what proportion of the food they account for.

A label like that would give consumers all the information they could want or need without stigmatizing genetic engineering. Wouldn't that be a better goal to spend tens of millions in lobbying money on than fighting defensive battles state-by-state?

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com