Grocery aisles in Washington state could look a little different in 2015 if voters approve a ballot measure on Tuesday (Nov. 5) to require product labels to disclose when genetically modified crops are included.
Most of the processed foods and beverages that dominate the shelves are made with some sort of genetically modified crop, like soy or corn.
Campbell Soup Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Kellogg Co. are among the companies pumping money into the fight against the referendum, known as Initiative 522, claiming the measure is misleading, would hurt farmers and raise grocery costs.
And the firms/organizations supporting 522 are(†):
• Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps
• Organic Consumers Fund Committee to Label GMOs in Washington
• Mercola.com Health Resources
• Presence Marketing
• Center for Food Safety Action Fund
______________
(†)-Top 5 donors in the order listed in their TV ads.
Mind you, I have nothing against ingredient labeling per se. But one of the “anti” ads is a statement from a Dr. (of unspecified type, Ph.D or M.D.) on the staff of Consumers Unioni, who asserts that the initiative provides “clear and useful” information to the consumer. Insofar as I have been able to determine, the principal problems with GMO foodstuffs is with those modified to survive exposure to weedkillers (Roundup). I am unaware of any proven links between GMO foodstuffs and human disease. So my question for the “Doctor” is: In what specific manner is the statement—This product is made using genetically engineered ingredients—of any practical use to any consumer from a health standpoint? We have been eating foods manufactured (at least in part) from GMO plants for something of the order of two decades. Where are the epidemics of health problems, the deformities (analogous to Thalidomide babies), etc, etc, etc? Apparently, there aren’t any. And while you’re at it, could you please direct me to the department where the inorganic produce is displayed?
That doesn’t suggest to me that the exceedingly non-specific language of the proposed warning is of any particular use to the overwhelming majority of consumers.
As to the issue of raising grocery costs, there will unquestionably be a cost to modify packaging to add the required statement to all packaging of foods to be sold in Washington State, but that is a one-time cost for printing changes on the packaging.
The far greater impact results from the administrative, testing and enforcement costs in Washington State, which have been formally estimated at $561,333.00 per annum for each of the first six years following the change. Those will be borne by the state’s taxpayers. And, as a “by the way,” the Washington State requirements will not conform with existing labeling requirements by the FDA for the remaining 49 states (plus territories), a fact which suggests that it will impose additional costs in managing shipping and transportation to ensure the correctly labeled products are shipped to the appropriate states.
The people behind I-522 are doing a marvelous job of saving the State of California from being stuck with the title of “the home of fruits and nuts.”
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
A few counter observations to comment 1:
The widespread use of GMOs is about 1 one decade old, not 2 decades, and that may not be enough time to track health effects. Diet related disease is certainly plentiful and apparently increasing, and it is not as easily traced to specific foods as the Thalomide deformities were traced to that drug.
DNA related science keeps discovering unexpected complications and interactions within genetic codes, and so I am amazed that Monsanto [I]et al[/I] claim to know that no harmful effects will result from splicing (say) a section of animal DNA into a food plant’s DNA. Those of us who are skeptical would like to be able to make our own choices of food ingredients. The extra expense of inspection and enforcement would come to eight cents per person per year in Washington State, if the figure of $561,333 is divided by 7 million population. As to the labeling costs to the companies selling GMOs, their expensive campaign against the labeling suggests that these products are profitable, so a little extra expense does not seem out of order.
sandlapper,
It would be interesting to see how much the pro-522 side is spending, which the leftist news media in Washington state have not bothered to report. Further, as I stated at the outset of my initial comment, I am not inherently opposed to labeling. I am opposed to spending any money to print the quoted label (which contains no actionable information) that 522 will require. The FDA already has labeling requirements. Impose them nationwide such that labeling is uniform across the nation, and let the Feds monitor and enforce, as they are already heavily involved in doing. Creating a separate State bureaucracy to provide NO ADDITIONAL USEFUL INFORMATION is beyond micturating to windward to the point of certifiable stupidity.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
[b]Militaris[/b]
I agree that it would be much better for the FDA to do this nationwide, but the politics of it all probably mean that it will have to be done by the people working through their states.
Regards,