In November 2012 the electorate in California voted against proposition 37 which would make it mandatory to label GM food. Food companies, transnational seed and chemical corporations spent $46 million on TV advertisements telling people that if proposition 37 was adopted it would increase the price of food on the table. The advertisements also claimed that it would harm farmers and lead to protracted legal battles.[1]
Even the New Scientist journal, which supports the widespread development of GM crops, argued that opposing proposition was a mistake for the food companies. “The last way to win the hearts (of the consumer) is to trick people to eat GM crops by not telling them what’s in their food.”[2] The New Scientist article does not tell the reader that labelling GM foods is mandatory in 62 countries, including the European Union and Japan. In fact, the situation in the U.S. is an anomaly.
When a consumer buys a bag of Monsanto’s New Leaf Superior potatoes she or he will find an extensive list of the nutrients and micronutrients on the bag. They will not be told, however, whether the potato has been genetically engineered or not. The reason for this is a bureaucratic mismanagement between two federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the U.S. food labelling is the responsibility of the FDA. However, the FDA does not regulate Monsanto’s potato because it cannot regulate pesticides. That is the job of the EPA. In the case of Monsanto’s genetically engineered potato, which contains the Bt. Gene, the EPA insists that, since the potato is a food, it therefore comes under the remit of the FDA. However, the FDA only requires that GM foods to be labelled if they contain allergens or have been ‘materially’ changed. The FDA has determined that the Monsanto’s New Leaf potato has not been ‘materially changed’, therefore the FDA has not required that it be labelled.
These arguments and others about the extraordinary political power which agribusiness corporations in the U.S. exert on both Federal and State policies were discussed during the debate on proposition 37. The labelling debate affects many of the foods which form the diet of U.S. citizens. Since the mid-1990s almost all processed food eaten in the U.S., from cereals to snacks and salads, contains genetically engineered material. In countries where labelling is mandatory, these foods would be forced to carry a GM label.
After the victory in California, GM companies might well have opened bottles of champagne to celebrate their victory. However, it might well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. According to Stephanie Strom of The New York Times, “ Instead of quelling the demand for labelling, the defeat of the California measure has spawned a ballot initiative in Washington State and legislative proposals in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and Missouri, and a swelling consumer boycott of some organic or “natural” brands owned by major food companies.”[3]
While proposition 37 was defeated in California, the companies involved received a lot of bad publicity. Futhermore, the labelling debate in California propelled the labelling controversy onto the national level. As a result, in January 2013 representatives from PepsiCo, ConAga and 20 major food companies met in Washington at the invitation of the Meridian Institute to discuss how to deal with the labelling issue. This Institute designs collaborative approaches that bring together people who understand issues and have a stake in their resolution. The Institute claims on its website that “we get results; our processes lead to the formulation and implementation of actions that make a difference.”[4] Significantly, Wal-Mart, the largest grocery chain in the US, also attended the Meridian meeting. That retailer had come under fire from consumer agencies in the summer of 2012 for its decision to sell a Monsanto variety of GM sweet corn.
Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University, who also attended, felt that many of these food companies did not want to replay the fight about labelling over and over again. Apart from the right to know dimension of labelling arguments, the supporters of the labelling campaign in Washington point out that a failure to label will hurt the state’s fish, apple and wheat exporters, since their produce is destined for countries which demand labelling. It would be ironic if the financial argument tipped the scales in favour of mandatory labelling.
[1] Michael LePage, “Wrong-headed victory,” NewScientist, November 17th 2012, pages 28-29. “
[2] Ibid.
[3] Stephanie Strom, “Genetic Changes to Food May Get Uniform Labeling,” The New York Times, January 31st 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html?src=rechp&pagewanted=print
[4] http://www.merid.org/en/About.aspx