START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Will a Federal Compromise on GMO Labeling Trump State Law, Forever?


Health & Wellness  (tags: diet, disease, children, abuse, health, food, government, investigation, protection, prevention, warning, society, science, safety, risks, research, nutrition )

JL
- 581 days ago - organicconsumers.org
Recent reports of secret meetings among industry reps and the Food and Drug Adminstration over GMO labeling piqued my interest, mostly because this critical aspect was missing: any effort to label GE foods at the federal level could bring the current gras



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (275)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 8:42 am
a Federal Compromise on GMO Labeling Trump State Law, Forever?
Michele Simon
Appetite for Profit / News Analysis
Published: Tuesday 5 February 2013
Any effort to label GE foods at the federal level could bring the current grassroots movement to a grinding halt by preventing any stronger local laws from ever being enacted

Recent reports of secret meetings among industry reps and the Food and Drug Adminstration over GMO labeling piqued my interest, mostly because this critical aspect was missing: any effort to label GE foods at the federal level could bring the current grassroots movement to a grinding halt by preventing any stronger local laws from ever being enacted. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Last month, Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association and one of the leaders of the GMO labeling effort, recently published an article about how “representatives of Wal-Mart, General Mills, Pepsi-Frito Lay, Mars, Coca-Cola and others” met with the FDA on January 11 “to lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”

The story was then picked up by Tom Laskawy at Grist, who reported that at the meeting, a Walmart representative said the retail giant would no longer oppose GMO labeling and that “[o]ther food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives.”

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.
The story kicked into high-gear when the New York Times’ Stephanie Strom covered it last week, adding a few new details, such as the meeting being attended by “20 major food companies” as well as two GMO labeling advocates: Gary Hirshberg, co-chair of the Just Label It federal campaign, and Charles Benbrook, professor at Washington State University. The Times story gave the impression that the meeting is something to celebrate. After all, if Walmart comes to the table, that’s a big deal.

But missing from both of these accounts is the ominous potential downside of federal GMO labeling: a sneaky legal concept known as preemption. Most advocates don’t find out about it before it’s too late.

Preemption simply means that a higher law trumps a lower law: so federal trumps state, and state trumps local. But in practice, it’s industry’s way of ensuring uniformity and stopping grassroots efforts. How I do know this? From years of experience of seeing it happen in various public health issues. It’s such a huge problem that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded an entire project called “Preemption and Movement Building in Public Health” to educate advocates about how to handle it.

Here is the pattern: a grassroots effort builds over time to enact local or state laws (such as gun control, indoor-smoking laws, or restricting alcohol sales), and industry fights these efforts for years, until they can no longer win. At that point, industry lobbyists turn around and either get their own weak bill passed, or work with advocates to pass a compromise version. In exchange, this law will preempt or prevent any state or city from passing a different or stronger law. Forever.

No industry likes to deal with 50 different state laws, or even a handful of expensive state-level battles. We recently saw this exact scenario play out in the food movement, with menu labeling in chain restaurants. For decades, the restaurant industry successfully fought federal efforts to require calorie counts and other basic nutrition information on menus. Then over the last few years, numerous states and cities started enacting their own laws, much to industry’s dismay. Enter the compromise struck between the leading proponent of menu labeling, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the restaurant industry: federally-required menu labeling for calories only, in exchange for all state and local laws being preempted, past and future. (See this document labeled “compromise endorsements” for the bill’s supporters, which include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a leader of the No on Prop 37 campaign on GMO labeling in California.)

Now, almost three years after passage, we still don’t have federal menu labeling as the final regulations are stalled at FDA, while certain industry members fight it. We also no longer see states or cities taking up the issue, figuring the feds took care of it. See what I mean about stopping a grassroots movement in its tracks? Public health lawyer Mark Pertschuk noted: “the rapidly growing grassroots movement for meaningful menu labeling may never recover.” He also cites the irony of this 2009 memo from President Obama opposing preemption in all federal rule-making. The memo correctly notes: “Throughout our history, state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national government.”

Amen to that. I am not opposed to federal labeling on GMO food. I agree this is where the problem must ultimately be solved. However, any federal standard must set a floor and not a ceiling, and not hand preemption over to industry. The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further. This, however, is not the end-game that Walmart et al. have in mind.

I asked Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now! and leader of the grassroots GMO labeling efforts about this issue. He told me it was a huge concern among movement leaders: “Ultimately the conversation represents a seismic shift in where we were four years ago on GMO labeling. But we know that anything coming out of Washington D.C. will be a weaker standard, which would not be good for either farmers or consumers. The goal is to make sure that a federal law doesn’t undermine state efforts.”

As Cummins noted about the meeting: “We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that have real teeth.”

Very wary indeed.
 

Ellen J. (89)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 9:09 am
Excellent article. "... any federal standard must set a floor and not a ceiling, and not hand preemption over to industry. The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further." - I agree wholeheartedly; why should big business be allowed to continue to run our lives.
 

JL A. (275)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 12:03 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Ellen because you have done so within the last week.
 

Angelika R. (143)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 12:54 pm
Yes, great article speaking out what we all think. The second sentence already pointed in the right direction "any effort to label GE foods at the federal level could bring the current grassroots movement to a grinding halt by preventing any stronger local laws from ever being enacted." Correct. BE very wary!
 

JL A. (275)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 3:04 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Angelika because you have done so within the last week.
 

Christina G. (11)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 9:47 pm
when i was a kid i was taught the good guys won... the problem is they get paid so much money to rip everyone else off and the good guys get paid nothing to try to hold the bad guys in check - how about making really stiff penalties for people who harm others and destroy our environment... no corporations to hide behind, etc - maybe we could bring bach tar & feathering on prime time TV!
 

John B. (215)
Saturday February 9, 2013, 10:33 pm
Thanks J.L. for the excellent post. I fully agree with the author's statement "The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further." Opposing preemption should also be part of the local activist's agenda. Read and noted.
 

Debra Van Way (12)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 1:13 pm
Yeah, I am always leary when Walmart gets into any thing-it is always bad when they do. I try to buy only certified organic food when I shop. I read every label for ingredients on things that aren't certified organic. I hope my organic garden does well this year because I prefer to can/freeze my own food. Then I know it was done correctly, no unwanted additives (ie, animal droppings, dirt, etc.), and just exactly when it was canned or frozen. I have flat out told grocery stores-if it isn't labeled organic, I won't buy it. The little neighborhood drugstore has started carrying some organic food and it seems to be selling well. I praise them for it and make it a point to buy it from them every week.
 

Birgit W. (144)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 1:25 pm
Thanks
 

Nelson Baker (0)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 1:47 pm
Thank you for the article.
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 2:05 pm
Some great comments--thank you all. John, I agree that's what we need to watch out for (preemption).
You cannot currently send a star to Chris because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to John because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to Debra because you have done so within the last week.
You are welcome Birgit and Nelson.
 

Mary Donnelly (47)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 8:09 pm
Thanks again for another great post.
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday February 10, 2013, 8:43 pm
You are welcome Mary.
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Tuesday February 12, 2013, 8:07 am
Actually Federal law does not always trump State law. Preemption does not apply to minimum wage the way this article implies, the State can have a higher Minimum wage than the Federal one but not a lower one, the same is true for car emissions, gasoline standards, and a host of other regulations. The biggest problems with product labels via GMO would be cost and court cases. How much more are State residents willing to pay for GMO labels that are required only in their state, the company can as with California gas raise the price as high as the market will allow. the other is going to be Court cases where you can bet that 'state interest' is going to be be the bench mark, as in does the state have a compelling interest in forcing the labeling, and that is going to be a problem as to the best of my knowledge there is no compelling, reliable, replicable proof that GMO constitute an immediate danger/health risk to the public. The problem is that while it might be nice to know about GMO in foods there is simply not the irrefutable scientific evidence that the courts will require to uphold a claim of 'compelling state interest'.
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday February 12, 2013, 8:31 am
Thank you Lloyd for providing a myriad of examples of state vs. federal law dominance relevant to minimum standards! You cannot currently send a star to LLOYD because you have done so within the last week.
 

. (0)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 10:52 am
Thanks for sharing
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 11:40 am
You are welcome Paula
 

Catherine Hein (0)
Sunday April 21, 2013, 6:18 pm
way to go keep up the great work !:)
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.