ST. LOUIS—The national debate over labeling food that contains genetically modified organisms is a “wicked” problem that cannot be solved or arbitrated by science, an Iowa State University sociology professor said.
Carmen Bain, speaking July 22 to 20 journalists attending the National Press Foundation’s “Food, From Farm to Table” fellowship in St. Louis, said GMO labeling is inherently a political and social issue. Science is either ignored or embraced in the debate, depending on which side it appears to substantiate.
Bain has an unusual vantage point in the argument. Although not a crop scientist or biologist, she is part of an interdisciplinary team at Iowa State that is developing new transgenic soybean cultivars. Her role is to study the issues surrounding consumer, business and social acceptance of GMOs.
The work has led her to conclude GMOs and GMO labeling are “proxy” issues for broader political, economic and ethical concerns such as pesticides, sustainability and corporate control of agriculture. And for some GMO opponents, labeling is a matter of political opportunism, she said.
“Many of them had other issues, but GMOs resonates with a broader public, and they want to take advantage of it,” Bain said.
Anti-GMO activists frame the issue in “rights-based language” such as choice and transparency, which “resonates with key American values, cultural norms and trends,” Bain said.
They are having some success because consumers want their purchases to align with their values, she said, and consumption becomes political practice as a result.
Bain’s remarks came as the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that prohibits state and local governments from enacting their own mandatory GMO labeling laws but allows creation of a USDA-certified voluntary national standard. The bill, H.R. 1599, passed with bi-partisan support, 275-150, but faces an uncertain reception in the Senate.
The debate in Congress may reflect the state-by-state argument over GMO labeling. Voters in Oregon, Washington, and California have defeated mandatory labeling proposals in recent years, but it’s been a hotly-contested and expensive fight. In Oregon in November 2014, a GMO labeling initiative was defeated by a scant 837 votes out of more than 1.5 million cast.
Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have passed laws requiring GMO labels.
Meanwhile, the marketplace is finding its way through the debate.
Big stores such as WalMart are powerful players in food retailing, but the “rise of these giants” has made them more vulnerable to activists’ campaigns because they want to protect their valuable brand names and reputations, Bain said.
Under pressure from activists, some large retailers have announced they won’t carry items such as genetically engineered salmon, eggs from caged hens or new GMO potatoes — and their suppliers have to fall in line.
But Bain said the companies aren’t victims in these developments. They clearly recognize the “enormous” economic and social value of niche markets made up of consumers who hold those beliefs and are willing to spend more to maintain them, she said.
“I think they could care less about the science,” she said. “If they can sell something they are going to do it.”
A YouTube video of Bain’s remarks to the National Press Foundation is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P4CGM_XU8w
Source: www.capitalpress.com