Trump's
USDA Proposes Deceptively Cute Images for GMO Labels
The public comment period is now open on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's just unveiled proposal for food labeling of products using GMOs—a plan that would have labels without the words "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered," but instead adorned with cheerful images.
According to Wenonah Hauter, executive
director of Food & Water Watch, the proposal represents "a gift to
industry from our now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who authored the
legislation to squash the Vermont GMO labeling law and mandatory labels.”
The proposal follows
President Barack Obama's 2016 signature on an industry-approved
bill—dubbed the DARK Act—that required national labeling standard rules, and
which critics blasted for having loopholees and lacking a mandate for adequate
GMO labels.
That law, which pre-empted Vermont's first-of-its-kind labeling law, also required a deadline for the final rules by July 29, 2018, hence the USDA's rollout this week.
That law, which pre-empted Vermont's first-of-its-kind labeling law, also required a deadline for the final rules by July 29, 2018, hence the USDA's rollout this week.
Among the problems with the proposal, says Hauter, is that the "rule refers to GMOs as 'bioengineered,' or BE foods. This is a deceptive strategy because most consumers don't know what that means."
Andrew Kimbrell,
executive director at Center for Food Safety, agreed, saying, "USDA's exclusion of the
well-established terms, GE and GMO, as options will confuse and mislead
consumers, and the agency must instead allow the use of those terms."
As for the images that
will bear the acronym BE—"Wait 'till you see them," writes Katherine Paul, associate director of
the Organic Consumers Association. "All bright and cheery, with sunburst
and smiley-faced images—but without 'GMO' appearing anywhere on the
labels."
"The images are
just as insulting to consumers as the law, which the chemical and junk food
industry lobbyists spent $400 million to pass—under the specious name of the
'Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act,'" Paul said.
The problems go beyond
the symbol, say food safety groups.
"One of the many
loopholes," Hauter added, is that it "would allow a company that
knowingly sells canned GMO sweetcorn to use a label that says 'may be
bioengineered' because less than 85 percent of sweetcorn grown is genetically
engineered."
In addition, it would
allow companies to use electronic QR codes, instead of a clear symbol, which
would necessitate consumers having a clear internet connection, a smart phone,
and the time for the hassle it would take to scan them.
"USDA should not
allow QR codes," Kimbrell said bluntly.
"USDA's own study found that QR codes are inherently discriminatory against one third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet. USDA should mandate on-package text or symbol labeling as the only fair and effective means of disclosure for GE foods."
"USDA's own study found that QR codes are inherently discriminatory against one third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet. USDA should mandate on-package text or symbol labeling as the only fair and effective means of disclosure for GE foods."
In sum, the groups
say, the proposal leaves consumers in the dark.
"This is a 'Call
to Action' to all Americans who have waited for decades to finally have GE
foods labeled," says Kimbrell. "Now is the time to tell the Trump
administration to do the right thing and meaningfully label these foods."
