In a landmark victory for the American consumer, the United States Senate voted on Wednesday to reject S-2609, a measure aimed at making the labeling of GMOs “voluntary” for food producers. This bill was also known by some consumer groups as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, and it represented a rare pushback by the Senate against big corporate interests such as Monsanto, who were trying to advance this measure into passage as the law.
This bill, S-2609, if passed, would have nullified the food labeling law approved in Vermont that requires the disclosure of genetically modified ingredients in all food products sold in that state (effective in July – see my previous article). The Senate cited the recent poll data that demonstrated that 9 of 10 Americans want GMOs to be labeled on food products. This bill (2609) was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and his response to the defeat of the measure was, and I am paraphrasing, that he presented a solution and that the opposition should present a solution to address this problem.
In fact, that is where this issue is headed in political terms, since the vote was so close and the votes are not there for cloture to be achieved, the debate is headed for a compromise version of the bill. In my view, after covering this issue for years now and having worked in the food industry, that compromise version is going to center on balancing the multiple components involved. The compromise bill will focus on the determination of a fair policy for the food producers, the farmers, and the consumer.
Opposition View
The contention by Senator Roberts regarding the absence of an opposition solution is also not a completely accurate statement. In March, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon proposed a separate bill which would make the labeling of GMO ingredients mandatory, but it gave food producers several options on how to disclose that information. I wrote a piece a few months back about the Campbell Soup Company decision to disclose the genetically engineered ingredients in all their products. The Merkley bill proposal was similar in that the food company had the option to put an asterisk by the ingredients that are modified and then put the following statement on the bottom of the label: “produced with genetic engineering”.
The debate can (and will) continue about a universal food labeling policy because it is needed to streamline costs. I have covered this topic previously in that as much as I agree with the law passed in Vermont and the ambition displayed there, we cannot have a system of interstate commerce where each state has their own individual food labeling laws. That will increase costs for the food producing companies and most likely those costs will be passed along to the consumer.
In general, I believe in the state level being able to mandate their own individual legislation, but in this scenario, a federal standard for food labeling of GMOs is needed. The big corporate interests such as Monsanto do not want to see that happen because it will be bad for their business, pure and simple. The bill, S-2609, was in some degree a misnomer, because it would make the labeling voluntary, which begs the question: what food companies would volunteer the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in their products? The answer is few to none.
The simple fact remains that an overwhelming majority of American consumers feel that they have the right to know what is in their food. That sentiment gave rise to the “right to know if it’s GMO” slogan used at several public rallies and on social media platforms. The political system is going to have to determine how it will mediate this situation to determine a solution that works for all parties involved.
Tip of the Iceberg
However, I believe, and others have echoed this sentiment in the media whether from the political side or from the strict viewpoint of regulatory controls over the industry; that this issue is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that the food labeling policy as it relates to genetically engineered ingredients or components is just one piece of a larger set of issues with regard to our food supply.
It is true that a good amount of momentum in this anti-GMO movement has come Gen – Xers and Millennials that are concerned about the health issues that have plagued our country in recent years: increases in the incidences of cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, and diabetes just to name a few. There are some media reports of consumer groups made up of parents who are petitioning pediatricians throughout the U.S. to send a formal report to Congress regarding the negative effects of GMOs in food and the linkages to certain childhood illnesses.
The trend toward healthier eating and utilization of organic as well as locally raised or locally grown food products is one that I have covered extensively in the past. It is certainly a contributing factor in the decision of the Senate with regard to the “DARK” Act this week. These are the types of issues I am referring to with regard to an entire food industry related set of legislation to make some needed reforms to help better inform the consumer when making food purchasing choices.
The country of origin being disclosed on products is another whole area in regards to food labeling that could be addressed. The issues regarding where our food is actually coming from has been a challenge for Congressional legislation for some time now. It makes sense that if the public is passionate about what ingredients are in a particular product, they would also care strongly about where the product came from.
The issue of organic food scale up is another topic that could use some form of policy solution. The crops and seed for certain staple food products have been genetically engineered by big corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical for years. I am currently researching an article on the effects of Monsanto’s Roundup product on soil and agricultural use which has been linked by the World Health Organization to be a carcinogen. The ability, or lack thereof, to scale up the amount of food needed to supply even part of the population with organic food is a huge problem.
Then, the whole issue of access to healthy and fresh food could be addressed by the government. I wrote an entire series of articles on food deserts in America back some time ago, and there are many problems still today with the inability for access to healthy food particularly in inner cities and in very rural areas. The USDA and other government agencies have discussed certain incentive programs to potentially remedy the situation, but they have no real impetus to take action without a Congressional mandate.
Finally, the whole topic of irrigation issues and water supply concerns with fracking and other wastewaters getting into our water table as well as the access for farming communities to water for their crops is another aspect of this subject area that could be explored through the legislative process.
No Longer In the “DARK”
In returning to the topic at hand, the defeat of this Senate bill and the solution presented as an alternative by Senator Merkley, which seems to not have the support to move forward anywhere either, a solution is needed. The compromise bill will be just that, a meeting in the middle. It will make the disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients mandatory for food producers but it will be done without the options in the Merkley bill, and probably entail something more visible on the product packaging than an asterisks.
The result of this vote demonstrated that when people are united in a cause, and this is one of the biggest issues facing the food industry, then the people are heard. We, the consumers, have a right to know what is in the food we eat and we have a right to make informed decisions based on what that information provided to us yields. We have the “right to know if it’s GMO” and the Senate heard that loud and clear, and more importantly they listened. What is left in the weeks to come is for a law that is universal, that makes sense, and that provides the consumer with the information disclosed in a clear manner. I hope the Senate will listen and will provide the public with that legislation, the results from this week give me some degree of confidence that they will do so.
The presence of genetically engineered ingredients in our food is a reality. The issue at hand is how we are going to better inform ourselves as consumers to the presence of these ingredients. This disclosure will raise awareness levels further to the widespread utilization of GMOs in our food supply. The discourse should then shift into a measurable action plan to scale up alternatives that are GMO-free. The stage is set for some landmark changes to potentially take place.
In the event that you are reading this and did not have an active position on this important issue, I encourage you to inform yourselves to do so. The presence of GMOs in food has consequences to us and to our children and to future generations. We have the obligation to make sure our policies provide alternatives and education so that all consumers have access to accurate information in the future.