#gmoban

Recently, the White House Science Advisor, John P. Holdren, wrote that the administration would be “revisiting” GMO regulation, claiming that the policies in place hadn’t been updated since 1992. He stated that the country’s current procedures “make it difficult for the public to understand how the safety of biotechnology products is evaluated”. In his own words the purpose of the overhaul is to “improve the transparency, predictability, coordination, and, ultimately, efficiency” of the current GMO regulatory framework.

     The president wants the public to feel confidant that all biotechnology products are properly vetted and safe before they reach your plate. Labeling advocacy groups may consider it a win, but the political path forward is laden with many legal hurdles. Biotechnology companies, like Monsanto, know the game well, have plenty of resources to play, and rarely lose.

In January of 2014,  activists rallied in Maui County  Hawaii for a campaign to ban the planting of GMO’s. Spending millions Monsanto and Dow Chemical’s fought a losing battle for the right to continue their operations in the island paradise. They had much to lose. Hawaii’s tropical climate provided each company with a year long growing season, perfect for their bioengineering experiments.

    When polls closed, Hawaiians voted  50% to 48% to ban GMOs. Monsanto and Dow took Maui County to court. Federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway overturned the controversial ban on a legal technicality  stating that, "No portion of this ruling says anything about whether [genetically engineered] organisms are good or bad…”

It is not all bad news. Jackson County Oregon voted to ban GMOs and it has gone into effect after a judge rejected a lawsuit from farmers contending it impedes on their “right to farm” under state law.

    “It’s law!” Vermont Governor, Democrat Peter Shumlin,  beamed after he signed the nation’s first GMO labeling law into effect in May 2014.     The governor proudly proclaimed. “Vermonters have spoken loud and clear. They want to know what’s in their food.”

The exuberant crowd then lit up loudly cheering Shumlin’s announcement, but not everyone was so ecstatic. The Grocery Manufacturers’ Association slapped the commonwealth with a lawsuit, something Vermont legislators were fully expecting. Food corporations argued the Vermont courts that the state hadn’t granted them enough time to implement the contentious new law.  In the end, Judge Christina Reiss upheld the GMO Labeling laws giving labeling activists a crucial legal victory.

US House Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has recently introduced a piece of GMO labeling legislation but republican controlled congress has been less than enthusiastic about it. Rep. DeFazio’s proposal hasn’t been able to find support from a single member of the GOP congressional leadership. The only token Republican co-sponsor is from the backbencher Rep. Don Young of Alaska.  

Genetically engineered food labeling legislation will likely continue to be a nonstarter in the US Senate as well. Since the Republican Party wrestled control of the chamber in 2014 the movement has lost all traction.

Right now, President Obama is more focused on upgrading the frame work around biotech regulation rather than  mandatory GMO labeling. However even this effort may require congressional approval. A GMO labeling law is a long shot on a national level but does have the potential for great momentum in true blue states.    

Regardless of what the government does, the food industry would be better served by voluntarily disclosing which of their products are genetically engineered. After a while, Americans will become indifferent about purchasing anything with a GMO label assuming that the biotech industry's claims are sincere and true.

A lack of transparency only breeds distrust and encourages wild speculation. Biotech companies guarded approach to labelling creates an impression that the industry has some dark secret to hide.