Free Minds & Free Markets

A Crummy Law Leads to Crummy GMO Regulations

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2016, was billed as a compromise that would put an end to years of litigation over the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food. Now that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has gotten around to actually writing proposed regulations as required under the law, it's more apparent than ever that the legislation will likely trigger years (if not decades) of continuing controversy, confusion, and court battles.

Despite clear evidence showing GMOs are safe to eat, they have long been targeted by a variety of activists. In recent years, some states responded to the whims of these anti-GMO activists by passing mandatory labeling laws. Vermont's short-lived law was so bad that it drew a First Amendment challenge and, later, spurred Congress to pass the federal standard, which prohibits states from creating a confusing patchwork of such legislation.

If that's all the federal law did, it might be worth supporting. Unfortunately, Congress can seldom resist going beyond the bare minimum.

Two features of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard are particularly troubling. First, the law leaves room for "other factors and conditions" that would trigger mandatory GMO labeling. That vague language is sure to sow confusion and lead to lawsuits for years to come. Second, the federal law allows food marketers to disclose GMO content via "text, symbol, or electronic or digital link." That leaves open the possibility that food marketers could simply use QR codes—those square-shaped graphics that have to be scanned with a mobile device in order to convey any information. Like the "other factors and conditions" language, this is almost certain to spur consumer bewilderment and result in litigation.

The law's vagueness has hampered the USDA's ability to write coherent regulations. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue warned in April that the agency could miss its deadline for introducing the required regulations. Now the proposed rules published in the Federal Register have spurred a backlash from both producers and consumers.

The Alliance for Biotech Facts, which represents thousands of farmers and food manufacturers, says in a statement that forced labeling of products that contain no genetic material at all—such as some oils, starches, and sugars—"would wrongly signal to consumers that there is something different or unusual about these products."

All told, the USDA received more than 14,000 comments on the proposed rules from individuals, nonprofits, businesses, and others. Some of the letters suggest that consumer fear of GMOs far outweighs consumer understanding of GMOs.

"I do not currently support GMOs due to the lack of information on them and the clear manipulation and vast financial resources that are being sent to keep information on GMOs suppressed from customers, and the public citizenry in general," reads one such comment.

What's worse, mandatory labeling laws won't put the issue to rest. One recent study, co-authored by a University of Vermont researcher, looked at that state's now-defunct law and found that it "may have…decreased opposition to GMOs." But another study issued in June—this one by the International Food Information Council Foundation—concluded something quite different: namely, that "consumers are generally inclined to avoid [bioengineered] foods if they are aware of them."

It's unreasonable to expect even good regulations to fully resolve contentious social issues. But bad regulations, like the kind the USDA has proposed under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, make it more difficult even to wrap one's head around the terms of the debate.

Photo Credit: Joanna Andreasson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BigT||

    And which is the anti-science party again?

  • perlchpr||

    The Democratic Republicans.

  • Fancylad||

    But Chakras, organic farming, Allopathic medicine, colon-cleanses, holistic-medicine, global-warming, acupuncture, anti-vaccination, Naturopathy, peak oil, Ayurveda, anti-GMO and crystal energy are totally legit beliefs.

    It's not like they're creationism or anything.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Will global warming energy crystals heal me if I believe in them just the exact right way?

    Inquiring minds want to KNOW!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Is this article GMO-free?

    Also, if there are GMOs in this article, HOW do I cleanse my computer monitor after having read the article, so that my PC (and my brain) will not become degraded in any way, but these GMOs?

    I want to guard the purity of my essence, dammit!!!!

  • Jimothy||

    Soak it in vinegar. Organic, of course.

  • Fancylad||

    Even "organic" vinegar is infested with chemicals.
    If you look it up you'll find it contains ethanoic acid and hydric acid. Both of which can be deadly if inhaled.

    You'll be shocked by how many things labeled organic, are actually full of chemicals.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Nor really. Everything is made of chemicals.

  • Eman||

    Fake news! We 've been affecting the genes of the plants and animals we live with for at least ten thousand years, and thats just purposefully. Is there any other example of more precise control of a process getting less predictable results?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Congress? The rules for turning legislation into laws are arcane but not terribly complicated. The results are predictable only in the sense that we know they will fuck it up. The exact fuck-up created, however, is anybody's guess.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    See the other Baylen Linnekin article, with this marvelous understatement:

    Which is to say, regulators and regulations often make no sense at all.
  • Robert||

    WTF—you'd rather forbid food marketers from using QR codes to disclose GMO content??!

  • ||


    I can't tell anymore.

  • Sevo||

    "WTF—you'd rather forbid food marketers from using QR codes to disclose GMO content??!"

    Do you know if your food was packed by someone with BLUE EYES??????!!!!!!

  • Sevo||

    Amazed we got only one luddite!

  • kevinspacey32||

    What this law is all about I did not get it clearly. I am doing work with does this would have an effect on my work or personal life. Elaborate in brief anyone.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online