FOOD
A CRUMMY
LAW LEADS TO
CRUMMY GMO
REGULATIONS
BAYLEN LINNEKIN
All told, the USDA received more than
14,000 comments on the proposed rules
from individuals, nonprofits, businesses,
and others. Some of the letters suggest
that consumer fear of GMOs far outweighs
consumer understanding of GMOs.
“I do not currently support GMOs due
to the lack of information on them and
the clear manipulation and vast financial
resources that are being sent to keep infor-
mation on GMOs suppressed from custom-
ers, and the public citizenry in general,”
reads one such comment.
What’s worse, mandatory labeling
laws won’t put the issue to rest. One recent
study, co-authored by a University of
Vermont researcher, looked at that state’s
now-defunct law and found that it “may
have...decreased opposition to GMOs.” But
another study issued in June—this one by
the International Food Information Coun-
cil Foundation—concluded something
quite different: namely, that “consumers
are generally inclined to avoid [bioengi-
neered] foods if they are aware of them.”
It’s unreasonable to expect even good
regulations to fully resolve contentious
social issues. But bad regulations, like the
kind the USDA has proposed under the
National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard, make it more difficult even to
wrap one’s head around the terms of the
debate.BAYLEN LINNEKIN is a food lawyer and the author
of B iting the Hands that Feed U s: How Fewe r,
Smar te r Laws Would Make O ur Food Syste m More
Sustainable (Island Pre ss). H e write s a weekly
online column on food-law issues for Reason.THE NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED Food Disclo-
sure Standard, signed into law by Presi-
dent Barack Obama in 2016, was billed
as a compromise that would put an end
to years of litigation over the labeling of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in
our food. Now that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has gotten around to
actually writing proposed regulations as
required under the law, it’s more apparent
than ever that the legislation will likely
trigger years (if not decades) of continuing
controversy, confusion, and court battles.
Despite clear evidence showing GMOs
are safe to eat, they have long been tar-
geted by a variety of activists. In recent
years, some states responded to the whims
of these anti-GMO activists by passing
mandatory labeling laws. Vermont’s short-
lived law was so bad that it drew a First
Amendment challenge and, later, spurred
Congress to pass the federal standard,
which prohibits states from creating a con-
fusing patchwork of such legislation.
If that’s all the federal law did, it might
be worth supporting. Unfortunately, Con-
gress can seldom resist going beyond the
bare minimum.
Two features of the National Bioengi-
neered Food Disclosure Standard are par-
ticularly troubling. First, the law leaves
room for “other factors and conditions”
that would trigger mandatory GMO label-
ing. That vague language is sure to sow
confusion and lead to lawsuits for years
to come. Second, the federal law allows
food marketers to disclose GMO content
via “text, symbol, or electronic or digital
link.” That leaves open the possibility
that food marketers could simply use QR
codes—those square-shaped graphicsthat have to be scanned with a mobile
device in order to convey any information.
Like the “other factors and conditions”
language, this is almost certain to spur
consumer bewilderment and result in
litigation.
The law’s vagueness has hampered the
USDA’s ability to write coherent regula-
tions. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny
Perdue warned in April that the agency
could miss its deadline for introducing the
required regulations. Now the proposed
rules published in the Federal Register
have spurred a backlash from both pro-
ducers and consumers.
The Alliance for Biotech Facts, which
represents thousands of farmers and food
manufacturers, says in a statement that
forced labeling of products that contain no
genetic material at all—such as some oils,
starches, and sugars—“would wrongly sig-
nal to consumers that there is something
different or unusual about these products.”8 OCTOBER 2018 Illustration: Joanna Andreasson