September 26
St. Louis Post Dispatch
MONSANTO Co. is in a pickle of its own making. The St. Louis-based
company and its industry allies are preparing to unleash a big-money
broadside upon an Oregon ballot initiative that would require labeling
for products containing even trace amounts of genetically modified
ingredients.
Monsanto and its allies in the biotechnology and food industry
are correct when they argue that individual state food labeling
requirements could be confusing to consumers. The labeling movement
is fueled by unfounded fears about the safety of bioengineered food.
There is simply no scientific evidence that foods containing genetically
modified ingredients cause health problems, even though they've
been on the market for years and comprise 70 percent of processed
foods in America's grocery stores.
But this issue isn't about science and logic. It's about trust.
And tradition. It's about maintaining a sense of personal control.
Mostly, it's about emotion. In every part of the world, people's
relationship with food is intimate, emotional, and deeply ingrained
in their psyches and their cultures.
Monsanto President Hendrik Verfaillie acknowledged as much in November
of 2000. "We missed the fact that this technology raises major
issues for people," he said. "We did not understand that
our tone -- our very approach -- was seen as arrogant."
Mr. Verfaillie promised then that things would be different. Yet
Monsanto continued to fight mandatory labeling requirements. In
the United States, at least, it prevailed. (Japan, Australia and
several European nations have mandatory labeling.) A few months
after Mr. Verfaillie's speech, the Food and Drug Administration
called for voluntary labeling.
That decision, grounded in science, planted the seeds of the Oregon
initiative. "I had many people tell me that they're less concerned
about moving DNA around than about not being allowed to know about
it," said Donna Harris, the Portland woman who conceived the
ballot proposition. It's basic human psychology: If you don't trust
the people telling you you have nothing to worry about, you worry
more.
Monsanto and its allies have created the clunky-sounding Coalition
Against the Costly Labeling Law. They've set a $6 million spending
target, 40 times the amount pro-labeling forces plan to spend. That's
the perfect set-up for an underdog victory.
It seems a stretch to believe that labeling would add very much
to food costs -- which would be passed along to consumers. It's
also hard to imagine that a label would significantly harm the sales
of food containing bioengineered ingredients.
The Oregon initiative is an overreaction with its own internal
logic -- illogic, if you prefer. But even if it loses in November,
it's almost certainly not dead. Activists in California and other
states are talking about launching their own labeling campaigns.
Defeating federal labeling requirements may seem like a hollow
victory in the face of more such fights. The simplest, and perhaps
cheapest, way to defeat the underdogs may be to let them win. How
illogical.
|
