Pay your protection money! Do the secret handshake and kiss the ring!
Otherwise, you can expect to be on the receiving end of a marketing campaign that will sully the reputation of your products and jeopardize your business.
That’s the message a nonprofit group known as the Non-GMO Project has been sending to food retailers across the country that have not yet submitted to deceptive labeling practices.
While the Non-GMO Project postures in the public interest, its marketing campaigns are attached to narrow special interests that undermine technological innovations in the agricultural industry. At the front end of this effort is the ubiquitous, cheerful-looking image of an orange butterfly perched on a blade of grass forming a green check mark next to the words “NON-GMO Project” that appears on products sold in grocery stores.
GMOs should be viewed as synonymous with ingenuity. But instead, it has been turned into a pejorative phrase largely because the FDA is falling down on the job.
There’s an extortion racket at work here, but it’s one that can be brought down if private industry groups form a united front to resist the Non-GMO Project’s pressure tactics. There is strength in numbers, and over the long term, these businesses would likely save money. Under the current arrangement, food companies are ponying up anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars a year to have their operations and products inspected for what the Non-GMO Project terms “GMO Contamination.”
That’s what you call a loaded term, and it’s one that does a great disservice to consumers who could benefit from genetically engineered ingredients. More than 100 government-funded studies have found that GMOs are every bit as safe, if not safer, than conventionally bred crops. Yet, the word “contamination” has been attached to genetically modified organisms as part of a labeling campaign that reaches a broad, cross-section of health-conscious consumers.
So, where is the FDA?
“A food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular,” the agency says, such as “the statement ‘None of the ingredients in this food is genetically engineered’ on a food where some of the ingredients are incapable of being produced through genetic engineering (e.g., salt).” The guidance goes on to explain that suggesting or implying a food is “safer, more nutritious, or otherwise has different attributes than other comparable foods because the food was not genetically engineered,” is similarly false and misleading.
The FDA’s unwillingness to enforce its own guidelines has emboldened the Non-GMO Project to double-down on its pressure tactics and coerce even those companies that don’t use genetically modified products into accepting its labels.
Salt, for instance, is absent of GMOs, but some salt companies consider it good business to use the label. Seed and plant company W. Atlee Burpee & Co. tried for years to explain to consumers that their products were not genetically modified because GMO garden seeds do not exist commercially. Despite the strong legacy of the company’s founder being an innovator in plant breeding, they finally gave into years of pressure and added a non-GMO label to their packaging and highlighted supplying non-GMO seeds to gardeners since 1876.
That’s an unfortunate turn of events that plays on unfounded fears detached from sound science. Think about it. Those companies that bow to the pressure tactics are betting that the same consumers who would be concerned about the technology of genetic modification would fail to recognize the absurdity of claiming to be GMO-free more than 100 years before the first GMO ever hit the market.
Food labels that make it clear certain items are absent can perform a valuable public service. Benign examples include “No Sugar Added” labels that provide useful health information for diabetics who need to moderate their sugar intake. There are also “Gluten Free” labels for people suffering from celiac disease, who can suffer intestinal damage from products containing gluten.
Because these labels assert a negative, claims made about the absence of certain substances can also be used to manipulate consumers and disparage competing products when there are no legitimate health issues involved. This is precisely the case with genetically modified products.
Under FDA guidelines, “GMO-Free” and “No GMOs” labels are impermissible if they include explicit or even implied health claims that non-GMO products are safer for humans and the environment. Before any health claim can be made, there must be substantial scientific agreement, according to the FDA.
That’s a problem for the Non-GMO Project — or at least it would be if the law was enforced. The FDA has asserted on multiple occasions that GMO products measure up to the same health and safety requirements as do organic foods.
Over last 25 years, every scientific and regulatory body to study GMOs has concluded that they are safe for humans and the environment. All told, we are talking about 280 scientific institutions from across the globe.
If the FDA is going to ignore its own guidelines, then it may be up to the private sector to spur meaningful action. There’s a model for successful resistance efforts overseas that could be emulated here in the states.
Some shop windows in Palermo, Italy, display a sticker showing an X with the words, “Addiopizzo” (“goodbye, protection racket”). The sign marks the store as one that has pledged not to pay any protection money to the Cosa Nostra, the local Sicilian mafia. This campaign for freedom from the extortion of local mobsters started in 2004.
A youth group convinced local businesses that if they stuck together, they would not only be safe from reprisals but would also derive additional business from the community for their bravery. Now a success with more than 1,000 member businesses, Addiopizzo offers an excellent model for any food growers, producers, or retailers in America that wish to throw off the shackles of the Non-GMO Project and their organic activist allies’ extortion racket.
Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C. who writes for several national publications.
