2013 October

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I decided to read the full text of Init 522. My findings were a little surprising.

The full text is a little over 2 pages (as printed in the State of Washington Voters’ Pamphlet distributed to all registered voters), but it spends the entire first page talking about how bad genetically engineered foods are. I don’t usually read ballot measures, but are all ballot measures so full of fluff?

Section 3.3 is actually pretty interesting. It lists out all the exceptions to labeling. Notable ones include:

• Food made from non-genetically engineered animals don’t need to be labeled, even if the animal is fed genetically engineered foods or injected with genetically engineered drugs. This means corn-fed cows or cows injected with rBST don’t need to be labeled, which is kind of a big deal.
• If the farmer didn’t “knowingly or intentionally” grow genetically engineered foods, he doesn’t have to label them. Now here’s hoping that our farmers know what they’re growing, but in the absurd scenario where the farmer doesn’t know, they can say it’s non-genetically engineered instead of the more logical “might be genetically engineered”. Sure, this clause might be there to provide plausible deniability to farmers when their crops get contaminated. But that doesn’t really inspire confidence in the label.
• Food containing less than 0.9% genetically engineered ingredients don’t need to be labeled. Anyone who’s ever cooked or baked knows (as well as most people who have eaten) that small additives can make a huge difference. Again, this might be a “plausible deniability” clause, but again defaulting to “not genetically engineered” doesn’t inspire confidence.
• Foods labeled “organic” don’t need to be labeled. This is the other big one. It means that the “organic” argument is actually correct. If you buy mostly organic foods and don’t accept the claim that organic foods are all non-genetically engineered, then Init 522 will literally do nothing to help you avoid genetically engineered foods.

So while Init 522 helps you identify foods that are genetically engineered, it does very little to help you identify the foods that are not. I agree that giving consumers information about what they’re eating is a good thing, but Init 522 clearly isn’t the answer.

“But isn’t it better than nothing?” Well, there’s the estimated fiscal cost of $3.3 million over the next 6 years (source: Voters’ Pamphlet), not to mention social cost I mentioned in my previous post.

And yes, the phrase “clearly and conspicuously on the front of the package” does actually appear in the full text.

(aka, labeling of genetically engineered foods)

I believe in science. I believe it’s not just our right, but our duty to use our scientific knowledge to improve our lives. And that includes our food.

There’s nothing inherently dangerous about genetically engineered foods. It’s just DNA, and it’s everywhere. Sure, mistakes will be made. But that’s true even of non-genetically engineered foods. Off the top of my head, we used to think margarine was good, but then we discovered trans fats. Artificial sweeters have been controversial for decades. And even though it’s not a food, certain non-stick cookware were later found to be toxic.

Mistakes will be made with or without genetic engineering. What people really want is a label on anything and everything we used science on. But that’s literally fear of science.

People in the labeling camp say it’s about having the “right to know” so that people can “make an informed decision”. But that argument is entirely disingenuous. Why is genetic engineering so much scarier than pesticides? One is just DNA. The other is literally poison applied to our foods.

Besides, people already have more than enough information to make an informed decision. I can already walk into a supermarket and pick out non-genetically engineered foods. Companies are starting to label their foods as non-genetically engineered. USDA Certified Organic already excludes genetic engineering. And organizations like the Non-GMO Project exist and independently certify non-genetically engineered foods.

I’ll admit, there are plenty of nuanced viewpoints on both sides. There’s an argument that goes “genetically engineered foods are safe and labels are useless, but we’ll label them anyway as a show of good faith”. And I can accept that argument. But the “debate” on Initiative 522 has turned into a shouting match between “fear of DNA” and “evil corporations”. And if I have to pick a side, I’m voting no on 522. For science.