Things have been happening so fast since January, I can barely keep up!
Vermont: On March 1st, Vermont passed bill H.112 to institute GMO labeling. A similar bill was passed last year, but it was stalled at the eleventh hour when attorneys for the Biotech Industry Trade Organization told Vermont that if the law passed they would sue. So, the state balked, and the 2012 bill died. But Vermont has rallied and is back for another go-round, which is significant. If this bill goes to law, of course the Biotech companies will sue. But on what grounds?
Surprisingly, this is a 1st Amendment issue. The biotech companies ask: Why are we being compelled to label without any cause? They say they are being treated unfairly under the constitution. Why should they have to say something that they don’t want to say when there’s no proof, backed by scientific fact, that anyone’s been harmed by GMOs?
However the argument for GMO labeling is that even though there is scientific uncertainty related to health risks stemming from GMOs, it’s gone beyond mere consumer curiosity. And the bottom line is this: the public deserves to have the information on the label.
Washington State brings a different set of GMO issues to the table. Washington exports whole foods — such as apples and salmon — to foreign countries that require GMO labeling by law. Think of the Arctic Apple and genetically engineered AquaBounty Salmon, most unfortunately careening their way towards legality in the U.S.A. Foreign countries — specifically Pacific Rim countries — are suspicious of these foods. So it’s become pivotal to Washington state’s economy to have a labeling law. One-third of the apples grown in Washington state are exported.
Vermont and Washington state are only two examples; there are currently 30 states with GMO labeling legislation in the works or pending.
Nationwide, the arena has not been silent either.
OSGATA vs. Monsanto: Back in March, 2012, 60 family farms from New York State preemptively sued Monsanto. They did this because they were worried that pollen from GMO plants would drift onto their fields, contaminate their crops and they would, in turn, be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement, something that Monsanto has done before. This case, however, was dismissed by the New York court.
This past January the case was picked up by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association — OSGATA — and an appeal was filed in the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. This is OSGATA vs. Monsanto. The plaintiff side has now grown to 300,000 individuals and 4,500 family farms.
Again, the plaintiffs are seeking preemptive court protection if Monsanto’s seeds blow onto their farms and contaminate their crops, and they are seeking to reverse the lower courts decision from last year. The argument was heard on January 10th and a ruling is being awaited. In the past 16 years, Monsanto has admittedly sued 144 family farmers over this type of issue.
A major surprise:
About 20 major food corporations, led by Walmart and including Pepsico, General Mills and ConAgra, met secretly in Washington, D.C. in January to discuss the possibility of lobbying for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law. Well. To say those of us who advocate woke up to a shock would be an understatement. “Walmart no longer opposes GMO labeling?” Was this just out of concern for our health? The environment? The honeybee population?
No, of course not. This was a decision based on the bottom line, and the bottom line only.
Why?
– they spent a lot of money defending themselves in California and they don’t want to continue doing it
– they got a lot of bad press
-they alienated some of their customer base, and
-there’s been a boycott of organic or “natural” brands owned by some of these food companies.
But, mainly all those state-led initiatives are becoming way too expensive a prospect to keep up with. So now there is talk of a federal law to label GMOs. Seems like a good thing, right? Not so fast.
If a uniform, federal labeling law* were instituted, it might not necessarily be the best thing and the reason is something called pre-emption. The food corporations are probably interested in a federal labeling law so that stricter laws cannot be passed in each individual state. Federal laws generally pre-empt state laws. So this needs to be watched very carefully. A federal law could end up just being a loosely watered down GMO labeling law, full of loopholes and essentially meaningless.
Whole Foods:
Whole Foods has finally made the announcement that by 2018 they would adhere to labeling 
requirements in all of their stores, the first supermarket chain in the U.S. to do so.
How was this major news greeted?
On the surface, positively. Of course, it’s a good thing. However, it took America’s most progressive “natural” food store until March, 2013, to make this move. There’s some negative feeling that Whole Foods did not step up to the plate for Prop 37 in California, when, it is believed it could have been a game changer. They did not contribute to that campaign at all.
It will still be a game changer. Biotech companies will suffer, consumers will get what they want and Whole Foods looks good for it. Farmers who grow non-GMO crops will be in demand for their product; a great thing! It just should have been sooner and 2018 is a long deadline to give. But it’s all about the bottom line, and the bottom line here is that Whole Foods will be the first national grocery chain in the U.S. to set a deadline for full GMO transparency.
*UPDATE: On April 24, 2013 the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA_ and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR). This federal legislation would required the labeling of all genetically engineered foods.
