By Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
I’m looking at the label on my favorite instant cup o’ black beans & rice.
I find that it contains, among other things, garlic, potato starch, and yeast extract. And 31 grams of carbs, 0.5 grams of fat and 330 milligrams of sodium. And 10% of my recommended daily allowance of iron.
All nice to know. And it must be okay for me to know that, because it’s all right there on the label. But, according to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), it’s not okay for me to know if the ingredients in the product I purchased include Genetically Modified Organisms.
Rep. Pompeo has introduced his Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act – sadly for him, now better known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. The bill was thoughtfully written for him by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lobbying arm of Big Food. The idea is to clamp down on nosy parkers like Connecticut, Maine and Vermont, who have lately decided to allow consumers to know too much. Pompeo’s bill will also head off the prospect of any other states labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Rep. Pompeo refers to this an “irrational protectionist barrier” and says he just wants to prevent states from continuing “to irrationally produce laws that allow a completely safe food to contain labels.” (No word from Rep. Pompeo as to whether he’ll be targeting my instant beans & rice next.)
Three years ago, as Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and their friends were preparing to kill California’s GMO labeling initiative by pouring millions into a thoroughly dishonest ballot campaign, Michael Pollan, writing in New York Times Magazine, noted the fondness for the word “irrational” among the opponents of labeling and pointed out that “genetically modified foods don’t offer the eater any benefits whatsoever — only a potential, as yet undetermined risk. So how irrational would it be, really, to avoid them?“
Pollan surmised that “this explains why Monsanto and its allies have fought the labeling of genetically modified food so vigorously since 1992, when the industry managed to persuade the Food and Drug Administration — over the objection of its own scientists — that the new crops were ‘substantially equivalent’ to the old and so did not need to be labeled, much less regulated. This represented a breathtaking exercise of both political power (the F.D.A. policy was co-written by a lawyer whose former firm worked for Monsanto) and product positioning: these new crops were revolutionary enough (a “new agricultural paradigm,” Monsanto said) to deserve patent protection and government support, yet at the same time the food made from them was no different than it ever was, so did not need to be labeled. It’s worth noting that ours was one of only a very few governments ever sold on this convenient reasoning: more than 60 other countries have seen fit to label genetically modified food, including those in the European Union, Japan, Russia and China.”
The Grocery Manufacturers Association has warned that allowing states to pass laws requiring the labeling of GMOs “will disrupt food supply chains, confuse consumers, and lead to higher food costs.”
And yet – did I mention? – there already seem to be labels on our food. We’re talking about adding a line to an existing label. And if a food company deliberately makes its life complicated by only selling GMO-labeled versions of their products in states with labeling laws, and unlabeled versions of the same product elsewhere, that would be the consequence of a business refusing the simple solution of labeling all its products across the board.
Rep. Pompeo says that preempting states from requiring labeling is the same thing as not letting every state “set their own rules for air traffic safety.”
Is it just me, or are these people starting to sound like the people who argued against gay marriage?
Remember? All those poor lawyers who found themselves in front of judges, trying to make a case for their client about the irreparable harms that would befall the institution of marriage, our society and straight people if equality were to be accorded to a segment of the population to whom equality had traditionally been denied. The judges kept insisting on being provided with evidence of actual harm if that should happen. Awkward moments ensued.
Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association, neatly summed up Rep. Pompeo’s bill as "not only anti-consumer, but anti-democracy and anti-state's rights as well."
Pompeo’s bill is due to come up for a vote in the House before the end of the month. Now would be a good time to let Congress know about your right to now.