Can you list the companies that are fighting GMO labelling?

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Friday, 15/05/2015 16:54

GMO Answers is a community dedicated to answering questions on the science behind genetically modified organisms. While we can’t speak to specific lawsuits, an article originally posted at the Genetic Literacy Project, “Vermont pro-GMO labeling groups play Monsanto ‘fear card’ in deceptive fund-raising effort”, by Layla Parker-Katiraee, Senior Scientist in Product Development at a California biotech company, sheds some light on this. Excerpts from the article are below, and you can read the original piece here.

"You may have read recent posts on activist blogs about how 'Mighty Monsanto' is taking the 'tiny state of Vermont' to court over its labeling laws. 'Monsanto Sues Vermont,' screamed one headline. According to the Organic Consumers Association, 'Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed a lawsuit' to block the bill.

 
"To recap, back in April, Vermont passed a law mandating all foods to be labeled if they are made with genetically modified crops. The law is to take effect in July 2016.

"The lawsuit, whose full text can be found here, describes why the plaintiffs (i.e. the people who are suing) think that the law is illegal. These are the two points that standout:

'The act is premised on a legislative finding that some consumers want to avoid food derived from genetic engineering because they distrust the FDA’s findings or otherwise object to the use or prevalence of biotechnology in agriculture. The State does not purport to share those views, however, and it has exempted broad categories of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients from these requirements.'

"The plaintiffs are asking: 'why do I have to label my products, but they don’t have to?” I agree here. Doesn’t make sense why some categories are exempt if the premise for the law is “right to know.'

'The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont’s power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their product in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government’s interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorized expert federal agencies.'

"Here, the plaintiffs claim the law is in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech by forcing a company to say something that it doesn’t want to say as long it is not violating any laws. Additionally, they are stating that labeling is regulated at a federal level, and it doesn’t make legal sense for a state to impose its own labeling requirements at the expense of everyone else.

“So that’s the outline of the lawsuit. Oh! One important point. Here are the plaintiffs:

“Monsanto is one of 300 members of the GMA. The GMA told the Genetic Literacy Project that its public policy decisions are guided by a consensus of the companies; and that a decision was made three years ago by the membership to support a national standard on labeling and fight against piecemeal legislation. The GMA said it was prepared to file a similar suit in California if the labeling law had passed there last year.

“One might argue that it’s a naïve perspective to think that Monsanto doesn’t have a huge stake in this issue. However, my perspective is that the food manufacturers have more to lose in this battle. Monsanto sells seeds (which are labeled, so any purchaser knows immediately if they are genetically modified or not). They do not sell the packaged foods that would be affected by this legislation. 

“If Chipotle’s and Ben & Jerry’s efforts to go GMO free have shown anything, it’s that ridding your supply chain from GMOs is not easy. General Mills, who now makes GMO-free Cheerios, has stated that it would not change the formulation for other products. This excellent depiction of the many aspects of the supply chain that would have to change in order to change a product from GMO-containing to GMO-free illustrates the difficulties inherent in any substantial change.

“If this law is not overturned, I don’t think that Monsanto’s sales on existing products would drop very much; after all, Monsanto sells seeds to the non-GMO and organic market as well. No doubt future innovations would be impacted. As such, food manufacturers would be the parties with the greatest and most immediate costs to bear as a result of a labeling law. But you don’t see Pepsi or Mars’ name on any fundraising campaigns.

“My theory is that SumOfUs and other anti-GMO groups put Monsanto’s name on this pitch to help fuel their fundraising campaigns.

“If I were to participate in a survey, and were to be asked, “What image comes to mind when you think of ‘Grocery Manufacturers Association’?”, I’d say “Mr Hooper from Sesame Street.” No idea why, but it’s probably the word “grocer” in the phrase that evokes that memory. I’d be willing to bet that for the average American, the amount of money they’d donate for a campaign against “the world’s most hated corporation” versus a campaign against the “Snack Food Association” would be very different. The brands that the plaintiffs represent are your favorite snacks and beverages advertised each week during your favorite NFL games. Who would want to donate money against Coca-Cola or Mars? Because Coke ads have cute polar bears and Snickers ads have Betty White. We love polar bears and Betty White.

“SumOfUs.org should not be singled out in this tactic. MoveOn.org has several petitions hoping to “block Monsanto from suing Vermont.” The Organic Consumers Association is raising funds to “help defeat Monsanto and the GMA.” It seems pretty clear that the reason why Monsanto is being used is to play on people’s sentiments and biases against the company.

“I believe that these campaigns are misleading at best. Regardless of your feelings towards Monsanto, its customers (i.e. farmers) buy their products so they obviously need and want them. A dishonest campaign against Monsanto and farmers is not the way to go.

“One thing is certain: the amount of money being spent for and against labeling is money wasted. The labeling debate will not be going away: in my home state of California, it was again brought before lawmakers last month despite being struck down in a referendum less than 2 years ago, and I have no doubt that it will be brought up again. The members of the GMA, including Monsanto, might want to consider making better use of their money educating the public about their products and their safety. Such efforts may help sway the public into realizing that a generic label that says ‘May Contain Genetically Engineered Crops’ is not informative.”