An Urban's Rural View

Here is a short paragraph that explains why seed, food and grocery companies are fighting state GMO labeling laws -- and why they need to change their tactics:

"In a poll of nearly 1,200 U.S. consumers for The Wall Street Journal, Nielsen found that 61% of consumers had heard of GMOs and nearly half of those people said they avoid eating them. The biggest reason was because it 'doesn't sound like something I should eat.'" (http://tiny.cc/…)

No wonder companies tremble. Many of their customers -- exactly what percentage the Journal doesn't say, indicating only that it's less than half of 61% -- avoid GMOs even though they all but admit they don't know much about them.

GMOs continue to win support from many of those who've studied the issue, like the New Yorker's Michael Specter (http://tiny.cc/…) and PBS's Neil deGrasse Tyson (http://tiny.cc/…). But among many average Americans, fear of what they don't know reigns. The New Yorker's Specter recounts a woman at a farmer's market who was petrified that the apples she was buying might be GMO and was hardly assuaged by assurances that genetically engineered apples don't exist.

GMOs sound like something they don't want to eat. Justifiably, then, companies fear that if they're forced to slap a prominent "produced with genetically engineered ingredients" on the package a bunch of people who are now buying will stop.

With so many people saying they avoid GMOs, it's hardly surprising the industry has political as well as commercial problems. Even consumers who favor GMOs or haven't decided what they think are easily swayed by the argument that we have a right to know what's in our food.

Labels, Specter writes, are probably "a political necessity" even though they "make no scientific sense." The food companies are shelling out millions of dollars dodging labels. Unfortunately, as those expensive battles drag on they're losing the broader GMO public-relations war.

After some early victories in California and Washington, they're starting to lose labeling battles, as well. Connecticut and Vermont have already passed labeling laws. Other states, like Oregon, are debating the issue. A few more losses and industry will get the nightmare it dreads: a patchwork of conflicting state laws.

There is another way: Change the terms of the debate. Propose a federal labeling standard -- a mandatory one, not the voluntary nonstarter the industry's currently backing.

Stop arguing about whether to label; argue about what the label says and how it looks. Concede that consumers have a right to know but insist that it's the right to know something meaningful.

"Produced with genetically modified ingredients" isn't meaningful. It is, as the companies contend, a warning. It says, "Beware. The government thinks GMOs may be bad for you."

As I've argued here http://tiny.cc/… and here http://tiny.cc/…, a meaningful label would disclose which ingredients are genetically engineered and roughly how much of the product they account for. The disclosures would appear in the list of ingredients, in the same type font and size as the other ingredients.

This would satisfy the right to know without scaring. The message would be "Here's some information to consider in making your product choice," not "Beware." Sales might still take a hit but chances are it would be a much smaller one.

No doubt anti-GMO forces would continue to wage guerrilla warfare state-by-state during the debate over a mandatory federal standard. But think how much stronger the industry's position would be if it was able to respond, "We're for labeling, too -- but labeling that makes sense and helps consumers and is consistent across the country, not state-by-state labeling designed to frighten."

If history is any guide, the seed companies and food makers and grocery chains won't choose this option. Comforted by the thought that science is on their side and fearful of any lost sales, they'll continue to gamble that if they just spend enough on lobbying and litigation they can win the state-law battles.

Wish them luck. As the Journal survey reminds us, they'll need it. The course they're on isn't persuading the public to embrace GMOs, even if it has derailed a few state labeling initiatives. Losing the public-relations war doesn't sound like something advocates of GMOs should want.

Urban Lehner can be reached at urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES)

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.