Let me say up front that, in general, I support the idea of
labeling food products and that more information is better than less.
Because of that I fully expected that I would
be voting for Proposition 37, California’s ballot initiative to mandate
labeling of genetically engineered (a.k.a. GMO) foods.
But there was a nagging doubt that lurked deep in my heart
and it had to do with California’s initiative system. It is a terrible, broken,
expensive system that tends to result in well-intentioned but badly written laws that often lead to multimillion-dollar
court travails or some truly nasty unintended consequences (such as
overcrowded, expensive prisons due to a badly constructed three-strikes law,
for example). When I finally sat down to read through the text and analysis of
Prop. 37, I found that my nagging doubt was justified.
Prop. 37 mandates that all raw or processed foods that contain
GMO ingredients should be labeled and that no such GMO foods could be labeled
or advertised as “natural.” The law would be enforced by the Department of
Public Health, but how they would do that is up to the DPH to determine. Who
would be accountable for the labeling? What would the fines be for infractions?
It’s all rather vague.
The analysis by the independent legislative analyst included
in the state’s official voter information guide says that “retailers (such as
grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying.” That was a
surprise. I’d assumed that manufacturers and distributors would be
responsible. But according to the
analyst, retailers would have to have documentation for any unlabeled food that
would explain why it is exempt. Although proponents of Prop. 37 say that there’s
no reason it should lead to higher food prices, I can’t see how extra work and
documentation on the part of retailers would not lead to higher costs to the
consumer. Big retail chains may be able to absorb those costs (but why would
they?), but my bigger concern is for the low-income areas that are already “grocery
ghettoes.” Those areas, largely underserved by the chain stores and more
reliant on small mom-and-pop markets, already pay higher food prices and will
likely pay more if Prop. 37 passes.
And for what? A warning label that doesn’t really have a
clear warning. Because the truth of the
matter is there are no good studies demonstrating a clear health risk from GMO
foods. Don’t get me wrong, there are reasons to be concerned about
GMOs—concerns about their use in agriculture in ways that lead to increased
pesticide application, about egregious corporate behavior on the part of
Monsanto and others that have led to serious problems and litigation for some
farmers, and about the lack of transparency surrounding the whole issue due to
the protections that patent and trade secret laws have provided for the
companies. The fact that Monsanto is one of the major donors to the
No on 37 campaign is reason enough for some people to vote yes. But
Monsanto’s opposition to Prop. 37 doesn’t necessarily make it a
good law.
As far as I can tell, no reliable study has proven a health risk from GMOs.
Proponents often point to a recent study done in France showing that rats fed a
GMO diet exhibited hormone imbalances and developed breast tumors at a higher
rate, but
other
scientists have been extremely critical of the methodology for this study.
More and better
independent studies
are definitely needed—too much of the research done in this area has been done
by agencies that already have a clear pro- or anti-GMO agenda. Those studies
only muddy the waters.
With no proven health risk posed by GMOs, people would be
better off opting for foods labeled “organic.” Organic foods not only cannot contain GMOs but they must also
be grown free of pesticides, which have been proven to have clear health risks
for those who consume those foods and even more so for the people who farm
them. The laws regarding labeling foods “organic” are already clearly
established and practiced, and organic foods are becoming more and more
accessible and affordable. Shopping for the organic label is not only a simpler
solution than a GMO label, it is a healthier solution.
Perhaps my overriding reason for voting no on Prop. 37 is
that the anti-GMO campaign has over-stated its case against GMOs. Aside from
stating that risks have clearly been proven when they have not, they imply that
all GMO products are engineered to contain or be resistant to pesticides. They’re
not. Although currently, most commercially grown GMOs have been developed for
pesticide resistance, genetic engineering is also used to develop disease resistance.
Have you eaten a papaya in the past 15 years? If so, it was a GMO papaya, since
the papayas grown in Hawaii were wiped out by a virus and replaced in 1998 by a
GMO disease-resistant variety. Without genetic engineering for disease
resistance, the prospects for feeding an exploding world population become
substantially more bleak.
For the past several years I have been raging at the
climate-change deniers and creationists who have been pushing government
policies with no respect for what science says on the matter. They’ve used
ginned-up studies and fear-mongering to persuade people to deny the scientific
proof that doesn’t fit their ideology. But if we only respect the science that
validates what we already believe, then we’re not respecting science at all. I
have to apply that same standard to the issue of GMOs. If more reliable studies
prove a health risk, I will revise my opinion about them. But in the meanwhile,
a labeling law that may prove costly, particularly to those who can least
afford it, and does nothing to help people really understand the safety of
their foods does not seem to me to be the answer.
