36 / 48
Fall
2017
Grains
West
36
Sawyer sees the agri-food industry at
another tipping point based on the way
commodities and foods alike are being
marketed. “It’s probably a renewed call
to action,” he said.
LABELLED IN THE U.S.A.
In Canada, labelling of GMO content
in packaged foods is voluntary, and the
federal regulations governing it were
reaffirmed in 2016. Along with making
claim verification mandatory, these
straightforward guidelines do answer in
part to concerns that the act of labelling
itself casts negative implications upon
the product. Single-ingredient foods
such as fruit and vegetables for which no
genetically modified versions have been
produced cannot claim to be non-GMO
without the inclusion of a disclaimer.
Perhaps counterintuitively, farmers in
the United States pushed the federal
government to institute mandatory GMO
labelling laws in 2016. The legislation,
which has not yet been put in place, was
created to head off an emerging state-by-
state legal patchwork.
Vermont dairy farmer Joanna Lidback
launched her fight against the state’s
proposed labelling laws with blog
posts and a letter to the editor of a local
newspaper, eventually testifying before
the U.S. Congress on the benefits of
biotechnology. “It’s well documented
that labellingwould increase the cost of
food, either through segregation or by
encouraging other, less efficient and/or
effectivemeans of production fromboth an
economic and environmental perspective.
I felt I had to speak up for the sake of my
community—both local and ag.”
She believes the federal legislation’s
array of disclosure options, though a
compromise, is good for U.S. farmers.
“It offers the opportunity for labels to
include more information to explain why
farmers would want to use GMOs in the
first place, either through websites or
a QR code.” Consumers, she said, can
access good answers to questions about
genetic modification technology.
Steve Savage is a plant pathologist,
sustainability consultant and
commentator on food and farming who
also works with CropLife Foundation. He
believes the anti-GMO stance was never
science-based, but rather a political,
philosophical argument. He described
non-GMOmarketing as the next big
thing in fear-based products. Well-fed
consumers have become accustomed
to purchasing food for what’s not in it, he
said, citing non-fat, sugar-free and gluten-
free items. “That’s fundamentally absurd.”
The institution of the U.S. labelling laws
headed off a lengthy resolution process
in the courts, he said. “But it didn’t do
anything to resolve the issue, because
it truly comes down to who has the
leverage in the marketplace.”
Savage believes farmers should be
concerned with GMO content labelling.
“People with good intentions are really
hurting the future of our food supply,”
he claimed. The organic-upsell market
makes it easy for corporations to excuse
their concessions to anti-GMO sentiment
by invoking customer preference, he
added. “But the message you’re sending
with the organic or the GMO label is
there’s something wrong with what’s left.
“Especially when the people that
organize that non-GMO certification
have stated that’s what they want to do.
Every marketer and other player along
the chain is facilitating that goal. The fact
Cargill, Danone, Costco and everybody
else would go along with the non-GMO
thing says these guys are going to win
and farmers are going to lose.”
FANTASTIC STORIES
Savage is skeptical that labelling
legislation and accompanying
government and university public-
education programs will increase
acceptance of GMO foods in the United
States, and believes pro-GMO initiatives
are being outspent by anti-GMO forces.
But Lidback senses a rising backlash
against the profusion of poor information
available primarily online. “I see it more
as a true grassroots movement of people
seeking answers and ultimately finding
good information,” she said.
Farmers, she said, should have got
out in front of the issue earlier. “We took
for granted that people didn’t care what
we do and how we do it. Indeed, they
Public
trust