GM Labeling for Different States?

It is estimated that 70 percent to 80 percent of the processed foods sold in the U.S. contain at least one genetically modified ingredient, and according to the USDA, 88 percent of corn acreage, 94 percent of soybean acreage, and 95% of sugar beet acreage in the U.S. is genetically modified. It will be virtually impossible for food quality and safety managers to successfully manage a massive NGMO transition—assuming there are enough NGMO ingredients available. Major retailers in five European countries have already recognized that currently there is not sufficient soy bean farming capacity within Europe for growing non-genetically modified soybeans and have urged greater governmental support for soybean harvesting in Brazil as increased demand for lower cost genetically modified soy from China risks diminishing NGMO supply worldwide.

What does all of this mean to food growers, manufacturers, marketers, and sellers? To small companies with sales contained primarily in one state, then this may well be a boon to their top and bottom lines since it may limit competition. At the same time, if nearby states have different regulations, it will inhibit their growth beyond their state boundaries. State by state labeling laws and definitions will result in a food quality and safety management nightmare. It will also have a major negative impact on both the top and bottom lines of medium and large food operations that will be forced to pass their increased costs on to consumers and even remove popular brands from the shelves.

Deciding to place a “GMO” label on every package would likewise be virtually impossible as each state requires its own unique GMO language to be used on labels for food sold in their states.

According to one report, had California passed Proposition 37 last fall, the average California family’s grocery costs would have increased by an estimated $400 per year, amounting to a total annual consumer cost of between $4.5 and $5.2 billion statewide. Another report estimated that Prop 37 would have imposed approximately $1.2 billion in additional costs on California food processors in order to meet the bill’s onerous requirements and would have resulted in higher prices on many of the foods consumed by Californians. Asked if they are in favor of labeling GMO products, most people will answer “yes” or claim to be neutral. When asked the same question in the context of higher prices or compromised product availability, most people answer with a resounding “no!”

As a nation, can we really afford the unintended consequences of letting 50 states go their own way on regulating our food supply? A select group of consumers comprising less than 5 percent of the population have the money and are willing to pay the increased price for organic and NGMOs even though the USDA states that there is no proof that these choices lead to better health. While they should remain free to make these choices, to impose the increased costs on the rest of the citizenry is unjust, begging the real question: Why are so many state governments and politicians spending political capital on GMO food regulations when over 95 percent of the population is indifferent? It appears that the Oregonian article about GMO salmon tells the whole story. The GMO effort is primarily about economics—with the “health” claim used when convenient.

Americans are not indifferent because they don’t care about natural or GMO products; they are indifferent because they are simply not willing to pay substantially more for NGMOs and/or natural foods when studies show there are no health benefits to be gained.

The natural and GMO movements are primarily about political and economic benefits for a few at the cost of the many. Less than 5 percent of the population is interested in purchasing natural products or NGMOs if they cost more than conventional products currently available—and according to all sources, they clearly do.