An Urban's Rural View

A flurry of activity often precedes a breakthrough, so don't be surprised if we soon have new laws on labeling foods with genetically-engineered ingredients. The question is what kind of laws.

State legislatures across the country are rushing to consider legislation that would mandate labeling (http://tiny.cc/…). Congress is on the case, too, with two bills before it. One would set a national standard requiring mandatory labeling. The other calls for voluntary labeling.

The voluntary bill is supported by food, grocery and seed companies as well as by a number of ag groups, including the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

In a press release (http://tiny.cc/…) the bill's author, Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, makes two points I consider valid. One is the need for a national standard. A mishmash of different state laws, Pompeo argues, would hamstring the food industry and confuse consumers.

The second is the danger that a mandatory labeling requirement might mislead consumers. They might see an in-your-face "contains biotech ingredients" label as a warning of health or other risks when the scientific consensus is genetically-engineered ingredients safe.

Valid or not, the second argument is unlikely to prevail. As Politico points out (http://tiny.cc/…), 15 Senate Democrats have signed up for the mandatory approach. Groups pushing that approach are sure to fight the Pompeo bill with every weapon at their disposal. A spokesman for one called it "a contract with the devil."

Thus, to reach agreement on a national standard, compromise will be necessary. Here's my modest proposal for a compromise that could meet both sides' needs.

--Labeling of food products with genetically-engineered ingredients should be mandatory. I personally think it's silly to worry about GE ingredients, but silly or sane the consumer has a right to know what's in her food.

--The labeling required, however, should provide information, not warnings. The information should appear on the back of the package, in the list of ingredients, in the same type font as the other ingredients listed. The more specificity, the better -- which ingredients, precisely, are GE, and what percentage of the total product they make up.

A label like this would allow consumers to make informed choices without needlessly scaring them. In many cases the percentage of the food that's GE would be in the low single digits. Those dead set against genetic engineering could avoid the products; those who aren't sure what to think about biotechnology might be reassured knowing the GE content of the product was minimal.

The battle, in any event, should not be about whether to label. It should be about what kind of labeling. Refocus the debate on these terms and a compromise is possible. Leave it a voluntary vs. mandatory tiff and Congress will deadlock.

We could then end up with what Pompeo calls "a 50-state patchwork quilt of GMO labeling laws." Why would anyone want that?