Vermont Poised to Become First State to Demand GMO Labeling

Anti-GMO fearmongering may have
won the day in Vermont. The state’s senate voted 26-2 in favor of
legislation demanding labeling of food that contains genetically
modified ingredients. The labeling requirement would not go into
effect until 2016. The governor has indicated he’s likely to sign
the bill, according to the Burlington Free Press.
From the newspaper:

Many foods, including an estimated 88 percent of the corn crop
in the United States, contain ingredients that have plants or
animals that were genetically modified, typically to increase
disease resistance or extend shelf life. Opponents argue that the
process may be harmful to humans. Supporters contend there is no
evidence of that. Sixty countries, including the European Union,
require labeling.

Sen. David Zuckerman, P/D-Chittenden, noted as he introduced the
bill on the Senate floor Tuesday that questions remain about the
safety of the genetically modified foods because the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration relies on testing done by the food producers
rather than independent sources.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is not the sole source
of information about genetically modified food, and note the “you
can’t prove it’s not harmful” positioning of the argument.
There have been plenty of independent studies showing the lack of
evidence of any dangers with genetically modified crops. Making
note of the labeling requirement in Europe doesn’t counter a
report
from the European Commission that determined, “The main
conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and
involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that
biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than
conventional plant breeding technologies.” More recently a study
noted the
lack of difference between the biochemical makeup of
genetically modified and conventionally bred tomatoes, other than
the intended changes to the ripening process for the GM
version.

The Vermont bill also includes the creation of a fund to pay for
the legal bills should food manufacturers sue the state to block
it. And they will. The legislation creates significant compliance
costs (how appropriate that the Senate worries about being sued but
doesn’t worry about those affected by the legislation being sued)
and is a deliberate effort to scare people against buying certain
goods in the absence of any scientific evidence they should be
concerned.  

The House version of the bill
(pdf) claims that there “is a lack of consensus” regarding the
safety of GMOs, which isn’t really true, and actually claims the
labelling requirement will “create additional market opportunities”
for foods that aren’t classified as “organic” but nevertheless
don’t use genetically modified crops. This is outright saying that
this law exists partly for the purpose of shifting consumers from
one type of product to another. They know full well it will push
some people away from these foods. That is the actual
intent of the law. Of course they’re going to get sued.

The Burlington Free Press story also unfortunately
highlights a problematic truth about politics and activism and
fearmongering. Few outside business and farming interests directly
affected by the law care enough to lobby against these labeling
mandates. A couple of senators noted that they had negative
opinions about the label mandate, but were inundated with calls and
emails from fearful constituents to pass it.

Reason’s Science Correspondent Ron Bailey, currently on
leave writing a book about, appropriately enough, how science shows
life on Earth is getting better, not worse, has written frequently
about the anti-scientific opposition to GM foods. Read his February
Reason magazine piece about anti-GMO activism in Hawaii

here.