This November the voters of California will be asked to vote on Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, which if passed would create a law requiring labeling of any food products containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.
This proposition is often referred to as the “Right to Know” proposition. No one in good conscience would ever argue against a consumer’s “right to know” as education and choice are paramount to an informed society.
What isn’t being discussed by proponents of Proposition 37 is that consumers do already have a way to know and make their own shopping choices accordingly. Organic foods are prohibited by law from containing any GE products and are currently available and prevalent in every store and supermarket.
Mention genetic engineering (also referred to as genetically modified organisms or GMOs) or bioengineering and you’re guaranteed to get a reaction. The whole topic is often confusing as multiple labels such as GE and GMOs area used almost interchangeably.
On top of that, the topic tends to engender a lot of emotion in people and sometimes sets people against each other when in reality what would be better than polarization is discussion.
The following is an excerpt from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) which gives a definition of food biotechnology from a federal agency’s perspective. The statement was given before the Subcommittee on Basic Research, House Committee on Science by Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The link is http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm115032.htm .
“FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY: First, let me explain what we mean when we refer to food biotechnology or genetically engineered foods. Many of the foods that are already common in our diet are obtained from plant varieties that were developed using conventional genetic techniques of breeding and selection. Hybrid corn, nectarines (which are genetically altered peaches), and tangelos (which are a genetic hybrid of a tangerine and grapefruit) are all examples of such breeding and selection. Food products produced through modern methods of biotechnology such as recombinant DNA techniques and cell fusion are emerging from research and development into the marketplace. It is these products that many people refer to as “genetically engineered foods. The European Commission refers to these foods as Genetically Modified Organisms. The United States uses the term genetic modification to refer to all forms of breeding, both modern, I.e. genetic engineering, and conventional.”
Much of the argument surrounding GM foods is centered on how and whether they are evaluated as foodstuffs.
Several countries use a concept called substantial equivalence as a scientifically sound method of safety evaluations of food and ingredients derived from GM plants.
Substantial equivalence isn’t universally accepted and opponents say it doesn’t take into account potential long-term consequences and have lobbied for governmental agencies to use alternative methods of assessment.
But to date in the United States, substantial equivalence is the accepted standard of assessment and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), the World Health Organization (WHO) and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) all accept GE foods as the equivalent of non-GE foods.
This acceptance is based upon assessing foods based on their chemical content, not their means of production.
The AMA announced in a June 21 statement that they saw no health purpose for labeling genetically modified foods – those made with GMOs – as such. “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education,” the statement read in part. Their statement reflects that they do not feel labeling to be scientifically mandated.
What is of concern regarding Proposition 37 is that while it sounds like a no-brainer when referred to as “right to know,” in reality it is much more complex when examined on its merits as a legal mandate and affects much more than whether or not a foodstuff contains GM ingredients and how the proposition as written may impact producers and grocers.
As written it is filled with conflicting exceptions as to what would need to be labeled and what would not. The strange exemptions are located in Section 110809.2 of the proposition and include fruit juice but exclude beer, wine and liquor. They require soup in a can to be labeled but not soup to go in the deli section. Snack food in a grocery store but not snack food in vending machines. Dairy products and meat are all excluded, even if GE crops have been fed. Only products from California, not imported products.
The reasons behind these exemptions are unknown to the average voter, but it would seem reasonable to assume that they were the result of political machinations.
These seemingly arbitrary exemptions are some of the reasons that the California Small Business Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Retailers Association, California Independent Grocers Association and the California Grocers Association have come out against Proposition 37.
It’s estimated that 70 percent of the food we eat contains some type of genetically modified ingredient. Opponents of mandatory labeling are concerned that it is likely to increase prices and decrease consumer choice, hitting the poorest people hardest.
Whether or not this is true is unsubstantiated, but nowhere in the proposition does it suggest any potential economic implications or costs for the bureaucracy to enforce it.
Further concern is the vague language of the proposition and the opportunity for legal misuse. Opponents of Proposition 37 are concerned that if passed its implementation will create the same legal ramifications as Proposition 65, the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.”
They present that since Proposition 65’s inception, more than 16,000 actions against businesses have been filed and nearly $500 million in settlements and attorneys’ fees have been racked up including approximately $3 million of those to California attorney James Wheaton, legal director of the Environmental Law Foundation in Oakland, who was instrumental in drafting the language of both Proposition 65 and who filed the ballot language for the initiative Proposition 37.
Opponents of Proposition 37, such as the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, have expressed concern that the same legally vague language is found in Proposition 37 and opens the door to potential spurious lawsuits with the burden of proof laying on the farmers and the grocers.
Some of that vague language prohibits the use of terms like “natural,” “naturally grown” and “all natural” in labeling as well which will require special labeling for products distributed in California but not the other states.
The legal wording of Proposition 37 would allow private citizens to sue farmers, distributors, grocers, food companies for fines of $1,000 per day and punitive damages if a product is thought to be out of compliance (Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2012/08/20/shoddy-drafting-or-part-of-the-plan-the-natural-problem-in-californias-biotech-food-labeling-initiative/ ).
The independent, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s office states: “Retailers (such as grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled. ... For each product that is not labeled as GE, a retailer generally must be able to document why that product is exempt from labeling. [Emphasis added] There are two main ways in which a retailer could document that a product is exempt: 1) by obtaining a sworn statement from the provider of the product (such as a wholesaler) indicating that the product has not been intentionally or knowingly genetically engineered or (2) by receiving independent certification that the product does not include GE ingredients. Other entities throughout the food supply chain (such as farmers and food manufacturers) may also be responsible for maintaining these records The measure specifies that consumers (and litigation attorneys) could sue for violation of the measure’s provisions under the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In order to bring such an action forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.”
And that is just a brief discussion of why the topic of genetically engineered foods creates such a stir. Many people believe that biotechnology is crucial to our exploration of ways to address issues of concern such as reduced pesticide use and increased drought tolerance and others believe that it is an affront to nature and is motivated by corporations who are driven by their bottom line, at the expense of all else.
The Lake County Chamber of Commerce accepts and respects one another’s personal belief systems regarding genetic engineering and has attempted to provide a brief background on the subject but the focus of our discussion is to provide a commentary on Proposition 37 as written. Another way of looking at “right to know” is to advocate that foodstuffs be advertised voluntarily by the manufacturers and producers as “GE-free” rather than vice versa.
For those who do accept the science that states GE foodstuffs are equivalent to non-GE foodstuffs, no hazards have been substantiated that would indicate that GE foods should be labeled as such. No one would ever come out and say “I disagree with a consumer’s right to know what they are purchasing” but a consumer’s right isn’t at risk here.
As mentioned above, savvy shoppers educate themselves about their individual dietary concerns, economic choices and make their purchases accordingly. It is relatively easy to find out the most common GM crops (corn, cotton, canola, and soy) and plan your purchases accordingly. Buying organic or eating mostly whole foods rather than prepackaged foods is a great way to ensure a diet low in GM foods if that is your personal choice.
Several alternatives to California’s labeling initiative have been suggested. There’s the voluntary no-GMO label, which many companies already use.
Consumers who want that product have the option of paying a premium for the assurance. We have seen that system in action, with the voluntary labeling of rBST in milk. Another option is to label the specific GM ingredients rather than a generic label for the product.
The bottom line is choice. Does Proposition 37 best serve this? Do we know how it would be implemented, what kind of bureaucracy would institute it, how would it impact small-producers and would there be trickle-down to the consumer in food prices. That is the question for each informed voter to decide.
Another interesting link is an interview with Dr. Kevin Folta, professor of Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Florida. He also is a science communicator and his interview on the subject of biotechnology is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/genetically-modified-food_n_1690653.html .
Melissa Fulton is chief executive officer and Jim Magliulo is president of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, based in Lakeport, Calif.
