[Insert George Santayana quote here]
Steven Novella over at the Neurologica blog, follows up on Campbell’s decision to label their products made using genetic engineered products, even if there is no mandated nationwide standard.
He first talks about the lack of science for labels.
“The very notion of GMOs is a false dichotomy. Opponents then argue that transgenic GMOs, using genes from distant species that could not mix in nature, is different than the other methods. This is factually wrong and logically dubious.
“First, horizontal gene transfer allows for genes from other kingdoms to mix into plants and even animals. In fact it was recently discovered that most sweet potatoes today have a gene derived from a soil bacteria, incorporated naturally thousands of years ago.”
Then he lays out what he calls “The Practical and Political Case”:
“Campbell is essentially concluding that the anti-GMO activists have won on this issue, and their only choice as a company is to go with it. If they oppose GMO labeling, then they can be portrayed as hiding something and being against consumer choice.”
The agony antis will then press their winning on this front and move the discussion to marginalizing and then banning products derived from GE from U.S. markets.
“All of the government and scientific caveats about why food with GMOs are being labeled will be forgotten, and anti-GMO ideologues will use the mandatory labeling to argue that GMOs are not safe.”
He points out that before there was a national label for “organic”:
“The USDA resisted an official organic label for years, based on scientific grounds. There is no evidence that organic produce is safer, healthier, or more nutritious, and so labeling will confer no benefit to the consumer.
“They eventually relented to the argument that they could have a limited organic label, and explain to the public that the label is not a claim for any superiority, it only has to do with the method or production not the final product, and only serves the purpose of standardizing the use of the term ‘organic.’ Their efforts were utterly futile.” [emphasis is mine]
Here’s what the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the organic label is:
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods…and “must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent…USDA certified organic labels indicate that the producer followed a process. The label does not say it is healthier or better for people or the land, only that a process was followed.
It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
Since we are talking about the future, the result where consumers have forgotten the caveats about the safety of the food system and the equivalency of genetically enhanced products, and they will only remember the overly-simplistic message (complete with syringes in tomatoes) that GMOs are bad and Monsanto is evil, is a guess. But given the past performances of the foodists, I wouldn’t bet against it.
Novella’s full piece, “Should There Be Mandatory GMO Labeling? is well worth reading in full.
This is how you ACTUALLY make a #GMO No syringes. Just bacteria, sugar water, and a touch of detergent and silicates pic.twitter.com/720cYofC38
— Jenna E Gallegos (@FoodBeerScience) June 20, 2015
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Nullius in Verba 
Right–I’m glad you connected on that bit too. It was the final piece I needed to crystallize the problem withe Mark Lynas’ call for mandatory labels. It was a great “real world” example.
The Organic label drama perfectly shows that a label will continue to be contentious, will not stop the shouting, and will never be as pure are the purity trolls need. As I noted in the comments at Steve’s post, organic fights with itself: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?_r=0 Every NOSB meeting now is some kind of big drama. And currently the top purity trolls are attempting to remove vaccines from organic standards–because GMOs. https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/nosb-testimony-gmo-vaccines-organic See? The goal posts never stop moving.
And it also reminded me of the other goal of labelers–they want to sue for penalties. A perfect real-world example of that is going around this week as well: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/
So what Mark’s argument does is puts us right back where we started. With some vague ideological notion–lacking definitions, and ignoring penalties. Obviously the Vermont law is absurd. You have to label Spaghettios, but not Spaghettios with meatballs? This is a mandate you want? No. It’s stupid. And–because of the penalties of this law–$1000/day per product–it’s expensive to get it wrong. Campbell’s had to do something “expensive” (as they said) or you know that anti-GMO folks are going to be running up and down the aisles trying to spot the breaches. Labels are not a couple of words on the package, as some people feign. There are real supply chain issues, and real consequences for getting it wrong.
This real world example shows us mandatory labeling is absurdly defined, with harsh penalties, and demands expensive compliance as a result. All the while offering half-assed “information” that’s nothing of the sort. Calling for mandatory labels without having to think about the actual hard questions is an easy place to stand, that has really no practical value in stopping the shouting.
Quite right, Mem. I thought Steve Novella’s post was spot on, and like you found that it provided that one bit of insight that I’d lacked–that this had happened before with the call for a national standard for “organic” (stupid appellation–of course living stuff has carbon is organic). I find it amusing that people who don’t want any government telling them they can’t drink raw milk, want government to define what “organic” means. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that they won’t like what they get. Voluntary certification programs to label their “organic” products would have suited their needs much better. I wrote about this awhile back: No One Expects the Organics Inquisition
Ha! And the more I think about this, the more perfect the example is. Every SNOB meeting now has some kind of protest–where purity trolls troll the purity trolls. It’s actually rather remarkable.
Here farmers protest hydroponics in organics: http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/10/farmer-protest-at-nosb-meeting/
This one is great–they got some headlines doing a stunt where they wanted to arrest the USDA: http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/may/2/stop_organic_tyranny_at_the_usda_nop
Yeah, the shouting will totally stop.
I also like it that NSOB is an anagram for SNOB.