New federal GMO label law not likely to satisfy everyone

Date:08-10-2016

A law that President Barack Obama signed on July 29 will require mandatory labeling of bioengineered food products across the country no later than two years from now, and while some in Hawaii believe it's "a step forward," others think it's a "slippery slope" that lets seed companies off the hook for testing genetically modified products.

Obama signed Senate Bill 764 into law  after it passed through the U.S. Senate 63-30 on July 7 and the U.S. House of Representatives 306-117 on July 14.

The law requires bioengineered food products to include a disclosure in the form of a text, symbol or electronic link, including the increasingly popular QR codes that can be scanned with a smartphone and converted into readable information. Smaller packages would carry a phone number or website for additional information. The manufacturer may select the type of label.

With some states having already passed labeling laws and others considering it, supporters said the new federal requirement would create consistency across the country, though opponents believed it would prevent states from creating stronger laws of their own. The new legislation preempts state law and includes the two-year timeframe for implementation.

Representatives of Hawaii seed companies and the Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for Keiki and the Aina (SHAKA) movement, which have been at odds over genetically modified crops, disagreed Tuesday on whether the law was a solution.

Dr. Lorrin Pang, who is the state's Maui District health officer but, as a private citizen, is one of the leaders of the SHAKA movement, said he's "never really believed much in labeling." Pang said it creates a "slippery slope" that allows companies to put untested products on the market and leave the onus on consumers.

"If someone were to tell me they have a product or a drug that hasn't undergone testing, but it's labeled, to me that's still illegal," Pang said. "We're supposed to test products that come to market and not just say, 'They're labeled. Let the buyer beware.' "

GMO supporters say there are hundreds of publications proving bioengineered crops are safe, Pang said, but companies only "publish the winners and hide the losers."

"It's very, very skewed. Labeling it is kind of a halfway measure," Pang said.

"Some people say (labeling is) better than nothing. O.K., but I don't want it to be a distraction and an excuse for not doing what I consider the full evaluation."

Bruce Douglas of the Maui-based Community Farmland Council called it a "fake labeling" bill that would keep states from passing stronger labeling laws. He said companies fear people will stop purchasing their products if they find out they contain GMOs.

"That is why the GMO industry created this 'hidden labeling bill' to make it as difficult as possible for consumers to look for GE (genetically engineered) ingredients," he said.

However, Bennette Misalucha, executive director of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, thought that the bill was "a happy compromise." The HCIA is the trade association for Hawaii's seed industry and includes Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, DuPont Pioneer and BASF as members.

"It's not the end all, be all, but it's a great start," she said. "For those who really want to know, they have a way to access that information."

Misalucha said food manufacturers have opposed outright labeling "not because we're trying to deprive consumers of the right to know" but because labels are only used if there's a health hazard or if the product has a particular nutritional value. She said hundreds of studies, including a May 17 report from the National Academy of Sciences, have proven GMOs have "no harmful impact."

"When you have a label, it would appear that there's something wrong with a product," Misalucha said. "It creates fear and stigmatizes it to the point where people think there must be something wrong with GMOs."

Many, including Hawaii's congressional delegation, are divided over whether the law would create the type of transparency that supporters say it will provide. U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono voted in favor of the bill, while U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard voted against it.

Hirono said in a July 7 statement that the bill "covers more products than the strictest state-level labeling law" while protecting states' rights to decide how GMO crops fit into a "sustainable local food system."

"Regardless of your position on GMOs, most of us agree that we all have a right to know what is in the food we eat," Hirono said. "I support a mandatory federal system for labeling and disclosing GMOs in food so that consumers across the country have consistent access to information no matter what state they live in."

Some companies have already started printing electronic labels on their products, allowing consumers to tap into additional ingredient and nutritional information via an app. The Grocery Manufacturers' Association recently launched a "SmartLabel" initiative that more than 30 food, beverage and consumer products companies have committed to as of December 2015, according to the association. The program expects to have more than 30,000 such labeled products on shelves by the end of 2017.

But for Gabbard, this type of labeling, which could become more widespread as a result of Senate Bill 764, still leaves a barrier.

"People shouldn't have to jump through hoops to know what's in their food," Gabbard said in a July 14 statement. "If S.764 was truly intended to expand consumers' right to know, it would require a clear, straightforward and easy-to-read food labeling standard. Instead, it creates a system of electronic codes, symbols and text that are confusing to consumers."

One group, FoodDemocracyNow, has announced its intent to challenge the law in court for its "glaring discrimination against the elderly, the poor or anyone without a smartphone."

The law, however, does require a study to be conducted on the technological challenges of electronic labels. Federal officials will have two years to work out an implementation plan for the law.

The Hawaii Farm Bureau, speaking on behalf of chapters that include Maui County, said in a statement that "because the federal government has two years to come up with regulations, it is premature to know exactly how this new law would affect farmers." The bureau supported the law because it creates national labeling instead of "piecemeal legislation from each of the states that could raise both farmers' and consumers' costs."

Nationwide consistency is also what state Sen. Roz Baker, whose district includes West and South Maui, touted Tuesday. Baker, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Health, said the law is "a good first step."

"There are interstate commerce implications, and for uniformity it's better done at the federal level," Baker said. "That way all food manufacturers know what is required . . . Hopefully the uniformity will keep any costs of new packaging from being passed on to consumers."

Joe Souki, state speaker of the House of Representatives, said Tuesday that the law contained elements that would benefit all parties.

"It's kind of a middle-ground bill," Souki said. "A lot of activists are not very happy with the bill. They would want it go much further. But I think for them, they need to look at it as a step forward."

He believed that the differences of opinion proved it was a good compromise.

"As a longtime legislator, when both sides are not happy, (the bill is) a pretty good deal," Souki said. "When you go through Congress . it's tough getting something out. It's kind of a miracle they got something out at all."