An Urban's Rural View

Even as the battle over GMO labeling rages at the state level (Oregon is recounting a narrowly defeated ballot initiative, Vermont is defending a lawsuit), the feds are joining the fray.

As DTN's Chris Clayton has reported (http://tiny.cc/…), Congress has two bills to ponder. One would require labeling nationally. The other would effectively forbid it, even on the state level. Both would have the virtue of setting a uniform national standard, avoiding a mishmash of state requirements.

Under the second bill, the Food and Drug Administration would have the exclusive right to require labeling if the FDA deemed genetically engineered food unsafe or materially different non-GMO food. As the agency has found neither to be the case so far, there would be no labeling until that changed.

Questions: If any food, GMO or non-, is found to be "unsafe," shouldn't the government take it off the market rather than label it? And isn't "materially different" a bit nebulous, an invitation to litigation?

The first bill would require food to be clearly labeled if any of its ingredients were genetically engineered. Sponsors argue that more than 90% of Americans support the "right to know" if their food contains GMOs.

Question One: Do they really? As this Washington Post article (http://tiny.cc/…) points out, it's a matter of debate. Yes, if pollsters ask Americans whether they want GMO labeling, more than 90% say yes. But when pollsters ask what information people want on their food packaging, only 7% include genetic engineering on their list.

A Yale researcher told the Post that the public's knowledge of the issue is so scanty that many GMO polls give "a measure of what people will say they want to label when they have no idea what that means."

Question Two: If, as the bill's backers insist, the aim is to satisfy the public's "right to know" and not to discourage consumption, shouldn't care be taken to avoid turning the label into a thinly disguised "consumer: beware." That's what a front-of-the-package, large-type "produced with genetically engineered ingredients" amounts to -- a warning label.

In previous posts, like this one (http://tiny.cc/…), I have bruised and battered this horse beyond recognition, but I'll beat the poor beast again: If the issue is right to know, then give the consumer information, neutrally and factually. Which ingredients are genetically engineered? How much of the product do they account for?

If, instead, backers insist on a label that whispers, "Better stay away, this product might not be safe," we'll know that "right to know" is just a fig leaf. If backers insist on that, we'll know their real aim isn't to give consumers an informed choice but to begin the process of taking one away.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com

(CZ)