The GM Labeling Debate, Part 1: No on 37

By Douglas J. Peckenpaugh, Community Director of Content & Culinary Editor

Discussion and debate surrounding Californias infamous Proposition 37 has been heating up of late, and it will only intensify as November approaches. The proposition, appearing on the Nov. 6 California ballot, would require manufacturers of food and beverageswhether those foods are raw or processedto disclose use of any genetically modified (GM) ingredients in a clear and conspicuous manner. It would also forbid the use of natural in connection with any products that require GM-ingredient labeling.

Organic foods, which already forbid the overt use of GM ingredients, would not be affected. Also exempt are animal-derived ingredients or foods, including cows milk, even if the animal in question was given GM feed. Restaurant foods and alcoholic beverages are likewise exempt (see The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act for complete details).

This wouldnt be the first instance of required labeling of GM foods. Japan, China, European Union countries and Australia are among the 50 countries around the world that already have GM disclosure standards in place.

Prop. 37 faces major apposition from the food industry. The following companies and organizations have collectively made millions of dollars in contributions to support the No on 37 effort (for the complete list, with detailed monetary contribution amounts, see the Campaign Finance: No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, Sponsored By Farmers and Food Producers page on the California Secretary of State website):

Several supporting organizations likewise oppose Prop. 37. One such group is the Natural Products Association (NPA), a nonprofit that supports the manufacturers of natural and organic foods, among other product categories. Its position statement on the issue reads: While NPA supports the consumers right to know about the foods they purchase, and appreciates the transparency Proposition 37 offers regarding genetically engineered foods, we cannot support the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. NPA is very concerned with the enforcement provision, as well as the limited definition of natural included in the language. Proposition 37 places every supplier, manufacturer, and retailer of food products at risk of unreasonable and frivolous litigation. We are concerned the restrictions on natural foods in the proposition language could create a difficult business environment in California and further hinder the ability of our members to sell natural products.

In a press release issued on Sept. 6 (see NPA Supports Consumer Right to Know About GMO But Opposes Calif. Prop. 37), John Shaw, executive director and CEO of NPA, said, Were especially concerned about the effect the enforcement provision could have on small retailers across the state, not to mention the possibility of fewer food options for California consumers. This concern likely stems from the verbiage used to define natural in the proposition, which some have suggested might prevent any processed food from being labeled as natural (see GMO Labeling: Right to Know or TMI?).

Any potential frivolous litigation hits the heart of the opposition. They fear passage of Prop. 37 would open the door to destructive, frivolous lawsuits against businesses throughout the supply chain, from farmers to ingredient processors to manufacturers and retailers (for more on the potential legal implications of Prop. 37 passage, see Lawyers Debate Potential Aftermath of Prop. 37 Passage).

The primary genetically engineered (GE) food crops grown in the United States are corn, soybeans and rapeseed canola (for an in-depth look at GM crops, review the A History of Genetically Modified Crops Image Gallery). These ingredients are ubiquitous across the industry, and Prop. 37 legislation would affect the thousands of foods and beverages that currently contain those GM ingredients. FDA has deemed GE foods safe, and they have been grownand consumedin the United States for nearly two decades. Although GE crops primarily go into processed foods and beverages, Monsanto recently began selling its GE corn in retail outlets like Walmart (see Walmart to Sell Monsanto GE Sweet Corn). If Prop. 37 were to pass, regardless of whether a manufacturer chose to simply create new labels with GM disclosure and other stipulations associated with the measure, or reformulate with non-GM ingredients, the net result would be the samehigher food costs. Passage would also likely initiate similar legislation across the country, catalyzing even greater price increases. When cola giants PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were forced to ask for the reformulation of the caramel color used in their beverages to avoid Warning: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer labeling in the wake of California Proposition 65, they didnt begin manufacturing new lines for California residentsthey used the reformulated caramel color in all products (see Cola Wars, Part 1: Starting on Common Ground for more information). The potential costs associated with passage of Prop. 37 very well could put some companies out of business.

Many in food are also concerned that Prop. 37 would mislead consumers, unduly raising concerns about the perceived safety of GM foods. FDA has long asserted the safety of GM crops and foods, and has stringent operational stipulations in place for such crops and foods (see the Genetically Engineered Foods statement by James H. Maryanski, Ph.D., biotechnology coordinator, FDA/CFSAN, which he made before the Subcommittee on Basic Research House Committee on Science, for details).

Recently, the American Medical Association (AMA) went on record opposing GM labeling, but supporting ongoing testing to ensure safety, noting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, according to a policy statement crafted at its June annual meeting (see GMO Foods Dont Need Special Label, American Medical Assn. Says).

Even organizations outside the United States question the logic in requiring GM labeling. As noted in Demystifying Food From Farm to Fork by Maurice J. Hladik, the UK Society of Toxicology maintains that GM foods pose no more of a risk than any other type of food. The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists. The author notes that the United Kingdom raises only modest amounts of the main GM crops of corn, soybeans, canola and cotton, and it is not a global leader in the development of this technology Thus, perhaps unlike the United States, there was little possibility for an industry-influenced second agenda, and the interests were almost certainly only the concerns of public health.

The potential of unduly raising concern over GM foods is part of the reason why the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is opposed to Prop. 37. GMA and its member companies are part of a growing coalition of California family farmers, doctors, scientists, food producers, grocers, small business, labor and taxpayer groups that has been formed to oppose Proposition 37, says Brian Kennedy, director of communications, GMA. We are involved in this campaign because this poorly written measure will mandate that our companies provide misleading and confusing information to customers, it will unnecessarily increase food costs for California consumers, and because it will increase frivolous lawsuits against businesses while adding new costs for California taxpayers.

Nevertheless, despite this mass opposition, a high degree of industry support has rallied in favor of Prop. 37and a recent ABC News poll says 93% of Americans favor labeling (see Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods). Clearly, this issue is poised for an epic battleand one that could potentially alter the face of agriculture and the food industry in this country forever.

For a look inside the case for supporting Prop. 37, see The GM Labeling Debate, Part 2: Yes on 37.