A Washington state referendum requiring mandatory labelling of food products containing genetically modified ingredients was recently defeated, albeit by a somewhat narrow margin.
Millions were spent by both sides in the campaign to convince voters of the benefits or not, of GM labelling.This battle has raged across the U.S. for years with the no side winning. The rationale for and against GM labelling has been well documented, but it has boiled down to ideology and ulterior motives with the consumer/voter probably more confused than enlightened.
Read Also
Farm equipment sales sector sees significant structural changes
Farming equipment sales have been declining for a number of years now, and one industry professional believes structural changes in the industry are needed to curb that trend.
I would suggest two trends have developed and perhaps the issue is becoming irrelevant to consumers/voters — time has a habit of creating that inevitability.
The inconvenient reality for the pro GM labelling side that a growing majority of manufactured food products either have some GM ingredient or are exposed to them at some point in the manufacturing or consumption process. That reality would mean that if GM labelling became mandatory it would have to be almost universally applied. I suspect most folks don’t read product labels and if GM contents were included those who did read them would become blind to the wording. Sort of like the universal wording “vitamin enriched.”
The other reality is that with so many GM products on the market, finding a product without them would be difficult and more costly — neither of which appeals to the vast majority of consumers. That would negate the underlying intent of the pro folks who presume consumers would rush out to find non-GM food products once they were shocked to do so by the mere sight of a GM food label. But like organic, fairtrade, free range and other such labels, this only motivates a minority with money to spend on lifestyle foods. In my large working-class area of Calgary, the food business is dominated by giant big-box chains and the lifestyle food sections are minuscule. Consumers in the neighbourhood buy on price and volume, and most wouldn’t know what GM was if they tripped over it. Nor would they care.
I give full credit to the science companies that have battled for the no label side. Such help was needed in the early days, otherwise we would have ended up with the GM paranoia situation that developed in Europe.
But maybe the time has come for the no side to change its tactics and embrace universal GM food labelling. I suspect it will have little impact on consumer buying practices. For the pro labelling side, such a step may actually not be all that helpful as it would dry up their campaign and fundraising business from this issue.
It could be a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
