The United States Congress has passed a GMO labelling bill, heading off what could have been a conflicting patchwork of state laws.
Lawmakers say the measure is about transparency, but it will do little to help the public understand the role and safety of genetic alteration of crops and other food ingredients.
But at least it prevents the spread of state laws that would make it difficult and expensive for food processors and marketers to operate regionally or nationally in the U.S.
And for that reason, the food industry and farmers generally supported the legislation, which has the approval of the Senate and House and is expected to be signed quickly by President Barack Obama into law.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
The U.S. Department of Agriculture will have two years to come up with rules for the labels and disclosure requirements.
It gives companies the option of an on-package word label, a symbol or a scanable code telling consumers that they can get more information. It does not cover meat and eggs.
The food industry was particularly worried about a GMO food labelling law already in force in Vermont that would have required explicit labels about genetically altered ingredients by January 2017. Several other states were lining up their own laws.
The federal law will supersede such state laws.
Critics argue that few people scan digital codes to learn about their nutritional content. Some companies like the digital codes because it allows them to update their ingredients without reprinting their labels.
In some cases, mandatory food labels can help consumers because they provide information on issues that affect health, such as calorie counts or excessive sugar.
But GMO labels, be they printed or scanned, will be virtually meaningless for most consumers and will do nothing to enhance their knowledge of the nutrition of their food. Nor will it protect their health or the environment.
Politicians advancing GM labelling laws say there is huge public support for it. They say they have a right to know what is in their food.
The scientific consensus is that genetically altered plants are not inherently dangerous to people or the environment so this demand to “know” seems pointless on the basis of science.
But the public has been fed a steady diet of misinformation and fear mongering about GM crops and the mostly large corporations that develop them.
The real motivation for labels from those who believe GM crops to be dangerous and evil is to force food companies to eliminate GM ingredients from their products.
To head this off, the food industry and agriculture groups had to accept a compromise law.
I think GM crops will continue to struggle for public acceptance until researchers develop new traits that are overtly in the consumer interest.
Generally, existing traits such as resistance to various pesticides and pests mostly appeal to farmers. The benefits to consumers are real, but hard to communicate.
It would be much easier to sell the benefits of genetic engineering if it produced a tomato that travels well and still tastes like an heirloom plant from your grandmother’s garden or a cassava, a drought tolerant crop extensively grown in tropical regions, with an improved nutritional content to improve the health of poor Africans.
