Monsanto Tries to Spin the Truth About GMO Labeling in California

1)  The law “would require a warn­ing label on food products.”

No warn­ing label would be required. Rather, the words “par­tially pro­duced with genetic engi­neer­ing” or “may be par­tially pro­duced with genetic engi­neer­ing” would be required on the back of the pack­age – sim­i­lar to what is now required for ingre­di­ent or aller­gen label­ing. For whole foods, like the sweet corn com­ing soon to a Walmart near you, a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words “genet­i­cally engi­neered.” The aim is sim­ply to offer con­sumers addi­tional infor­ma­tion about the con­tents of the foods they purchase.

2) “The safety and ben­e­fits of these ingre­di­ents are well established.”

Unfortunately, no long-term stud­ies exist on either the safety or ben­e­fits of GMO ingre­di­ents, so Monsanto has no basis for mak­ing such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety stud­ies of genet­i­cally engi­neered foods. Meanwhile, some inde­pen­dent stud­ies raise ques­tions about links to aller­gies and other poten­tial health risks.

3) “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no sci­en­tific jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for spe­cial label­ing of bio­engi­neered foods.”

This state­ment, while true, is taken out of con­text and is mis­lead­ing because the AMA also (for the first time) called for manda­tory pre­mar­ket safety stud­ies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently noted in its reac­tion to AMA’s announce­ment, label­ing and test­ing log­i­cally go together:

The AMA’s stance on manda­tory label­ing isn’t con­sis­tent with its sup­port for manda­tory pre-market safety assess­ments. If unex­pected adverse health effects, such as an aller­gic reac­tion, hap­pen as a result of GE, then label­ing could per­haps be the only way to deter­mine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.

4) Food com­pa­nies “have had the choice” to use GM ingredients.

Choice is a good thing; how­ever, con­sumers have never had the choice. Prop 37 will give con­sumers a long-overdue choice about eat­ing genet­i­cally engi­neered food.

5) “FDA says that such label­ing would be inher­ently mis­lead­ing to consumers.”

Of course FDA refuses to require GMO label­ing, thanks to Monsanto’s arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food Democracy Now’s Dave Murphy explained the FDA deci­sion in May upon its 20-year anniver­sary, which came as a result of a broader dereg­u­la­tory push by the first Bush Administration:

Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA’s pol­icy on genet­i­cally engi­neered food as part of his “reg­u­la­tory relief ini­tia­tive.” As Quayle explained in the 1992 press con­fer­ence, the American biotech­nol­ogy indus­try would reap huge prof­its “as long as we resist the spread of unnec­es­sary regulations.”

Dan Quayle’s 1992 pol­icy announce­ment is premised on the notion that genet­i­cally engi­neered crops are “sub­stan­tially equiv­a­lent” to reg­u­lar crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The pol­icy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a for­mer Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly cre­ated posi­tion of deputy com­mis­sioner of policy.

Five years ear­lier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush vis­ited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the devel­op­ers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meet­ing, when Monsanto exec­u­tives wor­ried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, “Call me. We’re in the dereg busi­nesses. Maybe we can help.”

Call they did. It’s typ­i­cal for cor­po­ra­tions to get their pol­icy agenda approved through back-channel lob­by­ing and revolv­ing door appoint­ments and then point to the mag­i­cal pol­icy out­come as evi­dence of sci­en­tific deci­sion making.

6) “Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”

There is no basis in logic that con­sumers could be denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actu­ally broad­ens the mean­ing­ful food choices avail­able through greater trans­parency. Right now, peo­ple are eat­ing in the dark.

7) “Interestingly, the main pro­po­nents of Proposition 37 are spe­cial inter­est groups and indi­vid­u­als opposed to food biotech­nol­ogy who are not nec­es­sar­ily engaged in the pro­duc­tion of our nation’s food supply.”

In fact, quite a large num­ber of food pro­duc­ers, farm­ers, and oth­ers very much “engaged in the pro­duc­tion of our nation’s food sup­ply” sup­port the cam­paign. (See the grow­ing list of endorse­ments.) Speaking of “spe­cial inter­est groups” wouldn’t that label apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the indus­trial food pro­duc­ers who oppose Proposition 37?

8) “Beneath their right to know slo­gan is a decep­tive mar­ket­ing cam­paign aimed at stig­ma­tiz­ing mod­ern food production.”

“Modern food pro­duc­tion,” is that Monsanto’s lat­est euphemism for sci­en­tif­i­cally alter­ing the genetic code of the food sup­ply? In truth, noth­ing is hid­den “beneath” the Right to Know cam­paign, that’s all it’s about. But because Monsanto has no good argu­ment for why con­sumers don’t have the right to know how their food is pro­duced, it has to resort to dis­tract­ing deceptions.

9) “[Proponents] opin­ions are in stark con­trast with lead­ing health associations.”

Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorse­ments reveal that Monsanto and friends are actu­ally out of step with lead­ing health asso­ci­a­tions, such as:

• American Public Health Association
• American Medical Students Association
• American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Physicians for Social Responsibility, California chapters
• California Nurses Association

10) “The California pro­posal would serve the pur­poses of a few spe­cial inter­est groups at the expense of the major­ity of consumers.”

Again, logic defies this talk­ing point, espe­cially since all polling indi­cates a “major­ity of con­sumers” want GMO food to be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the propo­si­tion win­ning by a 3-to-1 mar­gin. No won­der Monsanto has to resort to such non­sen­si­cal talk­ing points.

Michele Simon

Michele is a pub­lic health lawyer who has been research­ing and writ­ing about the food indus­try and food pol­i­tics since 1996. Visit her site at www.EatDrinkPolitics.com/