Label Laws
The efforts to gain GMO food labeling continue with potentially costly consequences for growers, retailers and consumers.
Supporters of Proposition 37, California's proposed labeling law for foods containing any genetically modified organism (GMO), suffered a narrow but very public defeat at the ballot box in 2012. But failure in one state has not brought an end to the labeling movement.
Already this year pro-GMO labeling supporters have won smaller, somewhat hollow victories when first Connecticut and then Maine passed laws requiring food containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. Both laws contain a requirement that four other states must pass similar laws and that one of the states, or combination of states, has a population of more than 20 million people.
Although those restrictions will slow down possible implementation, they show that proponents of GMO food labeling are persistent and patient, methodically taking their cause to each state one by one. Voters in Washington state will have their say on a labeling referendum this November, and proponents are working to qualify a similar referendum in Oregon for 2014.
"These are not labels that are intended to inform. These are labels that are intended to scare," says Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). BIO helps educate people about genetically modified products. "Unfortunately, labeling proponents have momentum on their side."
Ongoing Challenges
Dennis Kelly, state affairs team leader for Syngenta, has seen a surge of activity in the pro-GMO labeling movement over the last few years. Each year, he sees a dozen or more labeling bills introduced in statehouses across the nation.
"They are looking to limit use of the technology by forcing grocers to label it as such," Kelly says. "If they can label it, they will scare some people who won't buy the product."
If consumers are scared away from certain ingredients, some food manufacturers may stop buying those commodities, eventually forcing producers to grow different varieties or hybrids, if they want to sell to these food manufacturers, notes Kelly.
Syngenta supports the industry's position on voluntary labeling of products, such as "certified organic" and "non-GMO" to meet the demands of consumers in the marketplace who value those products. It believes, however, that mandatory labeling should be limited to information relevant to health, safety and nutrition, as is currently the U.S. standard.
"From our point of view, we are very proud of the innovation and technology Syngenta delivers to producers and consumers," says Greg Thies, senior director of government relations. "There is no reason for us to hide that, but putting labels on food is not the way to do that. Federal food labeling law is specifically aimed at providing necessary safety information to consumers who have health issues that require careful monitoring of the foods they eat. Food made from GM ingredients is not a safety issue."
More than 400 scientific studies have shown that foods made with genetically engineered ingredients are safe. The federal Food and Drug Administration agreed more than two decades ago when it ruled that genetically engineered foods are not "materially different" from their traditional counterparts and do not have to be labeled.
Syngenta also recognizes that labeling creates additional costs for food manufacturers and could leave them vulnerable to litigation if a product labeled as "non-GMO" were found to contain genetically engineered ingredients. That is a real possibility, since roughly 90 percent of the nation's corn, soybean, canola, cotton and sugarbeet acres are planted using GMO seeds.
Education Is Key
The stakes of the GMO labeling debate are high. According to the American Soybean Association (ASA), exports of genetically modified soybeans have fallen 70 percent in the last 15 years. ASA largely blames mandatory GMO food labeling rules in Europe for the decline. That means educating American consumers and lawmakers, who are considering adopting similar laws on either a state or national basis, is an important priority.
Last year, biotech companies and grocery manufacturers spent nearly $45 million to help defeat California's Proposition 37. However, in the long run, reaching out to community and legislative leaders to discuss their concerns about GMO foods is a more cost-effective way to fight food labeling laws than state-by-state campaign ads.
Farmers who grow GMO crops and ag retailers who carry those products need to talk more about how Bt corn or herbicide-resistant soybeans make farming more productive and reduce agriculture's footprint on the environment, while keeping food costs low, says Greg Conko, executive director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"My fear is that we may not fully appreciate the nature of the threat in this renewed effort, which is well-financed and well-coordinated," adds Conko.
To help educate the public, Syngenta has teamed up with other ag biotech companies to launch a website to answer consumer questions about how food is grown. The GMO Answers website (www.gmoanswers.com) serves as a central resource about GMOs and their use in agriculture.
"We at Syngenta think our products are quite valuable to society, and we would like people to know more about them," says Thies.
Already this year pro-GMO labeling supporters have won smaller, somewhat hollow victories when first Connecticut and then Maine passed laws requiring food containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. Both laws contain a requirement that four other states must pass similar laws and that one of the states, or combination of states, has a population of more than 20 million people.
Although those restrictions will slow down possible implementation, they show that proponents of GMO food labeling are persistent and patient, methodically taking their cause to each state one by one. Voters in Washington state will have their say on a labeling referendum this November, and proponents are working to qualify a similar referendum in Oregon for 2014.
"These are not labels that are intended to inform. These are labels that are intended to scare," says Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). BIO helps educate people about genetically modified products. "Unfortunately, labeling proponents have momentum on their side."
Ongoing Challenges
Dennis Kelly, state affairs team leader for Syngenta, has seen a surge of activity in the pro-GMO labeling movement over the last few years. Each year, he sees a dozen or more labeling bills introduced in statehouses across the nation.
"They are looking to limit use of the technology by forcing grocers to label it as such," Kelly says. "If they can label it, they will scare some people who won't buy the product."
If consumers are scared away from certain ingredients, some food manufacturers may stop buying those commodities, eventually forcing producers to grow different varieties or hybrids, if they want to sell to these food manufacturers, notes Kelly.
Syngenta supports the industry's position on voluntary labeling of products, such as "certified organic" and "non-GMO" to meet the demands of consumers in the marketplace who value those products. It believes, however, that mandatory labeling should be limited to information relevant to health, safety and nutrition, as is currently the U.S. standard.
"From our point of view, we are very proud of the innovation and technology Syngenta delivers to producers and consumers," says Greg Thies, senior director of government relations. "There is no reason for us to hide that, but putting labels on food is not the way to do that. Federal food labeling law is specifically aimed at providing necessary safety information to consumers who have health issues that require careful monitoring of the foods they eat. Food made from GM ingredients is not a safety issue."
More than 400 scientific studies have shown that foods made with genetically engineered ingredients are safe. The federal Food and Drug Administration agreed more than two decades ago when it ruled that genetically engineered foods are not "materially different" from their traditional counterparts and do not have to be labeled.
Syngenta also recognizes that labeling creates additional costs for food manufacturers and could leave them vulnerable to litigation if a product labeled as "non-GMO" were found to contain genetically engineered ingredients. That is a real possibility, since roughly 90 percent of the nation's corn, soybean, canola, cotton and sugarbeet acres are planted using GMO seeds.
Education Is Key
The stakes of the GMO labeling debate are high. According to the American Soybean Association (ASA), exports of genetically modified soybeans have fallen 70 percent in the last 15 years. ASA largely blames mandatory GMO food labeling rules in Europe for the decline. That means educating American consumers and lawmakers, who are considering adopting similar laws on either a state or national basis, is an important priority.
Last year, biotech companies and grocery manufacturers spent nearly $45 million to help defeat California's Proposition 37. However, in the long run, reaching out to community and legislative leaders to discuss their concerns about GMO foods is a more cost-effective way to fight food labeling laws than state-by-state campaign ads.
Farmers who grow GMO crops and ag retailers who carry those products need to talk more about how Bt corn or herbicide-resistant soybeans make farming more productive and reduce agriculture's footprint on the environment, while keeping food costs low, says Greg Conko, executive director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"My fear is that we may not fully appreciate the nature of the threat in this renewed effort, which is well-financed and well-coordinated," adds Conko.
To help educate the public, Syngenta has teamed up with other ag biotech companies to launch a website to answer consumer questions about how food is grown. The GMO Answers website (www.gmoanswers.com) serves as a central resource about GMOs and their use in agriculture.
"We at Syngenta think our products are quite valuable to society, and we would like people to know more about them," says Thies.
share this article
