Big Ag pushes lawmakers to roll back consumer rights

As final nego­ti­a­tions begin on the pro­posed dereg­u­la­tion of genet­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied (GM) plants devel­oped with new genom­ic tech­niques (NGTs), indus­try groups are pres­sur­ing EU deci­sion-mak­ers to reject manda­to­ry on-pack­age labelling for prod­ucts con­tain­ing these GMOs. Save Our Seeds urges EU deci­sion-mak­ers to uphold trans­paren­cy and pro­tect con­sumers’ fun­da­men­tal right to choose what they eat.

By Franziska Achter­berg, Save Our Seeds

The indus­try’s mask has final­ly slipped in the bat­tle over the pro­posed dereg­u­la­tion of GM plants engi­neered with so-called “new genom­ic tech­niques” (NGT) Major chem­i­cal and biotech indus­tries, com­mod­i­ty traders, seed breed­ers and the farmer umbrel­la group Copa-Coge­ca have launched a full-blown attack on con­sumer rights. In a joint state­ment, they demand that EU leg­is­la­tors abol­ish a long-stand­ing rule that all GM food must be labelled and GM plants must be trace­able.

This isn’t a new demand. But so far, the indus­try has nev­er made an effort to explain that, real­ly, con­sumers should not con­cern them­selves with how their food is made. When the Par­lia­ment vot­ed in Feb­ru­ary last year to require con­sumer labelling of NGT prod­ucts, the seed indus­try – the mouth­piece of the dereg­u­la­tion camp – said that “mar­ket labelling” was a “detail” that need­ed eval­u­a­tion.

Now, as the tri­logue marks the end game, this “detail” has turned into a major fight. With great fan­fare, indus­try organ­i­sa­tions are say­ing peo­ple should stop ask­ing how their food was pro­duced. They should back down on want­i­ng to know what they’re eat­ing.

How­ev­er, in the EU, con­sumers have the right to “make informed choic­es in rela­tion to the foods they con­sume”, accord­ing to the EU’s Gen­er­al Food Law. Trust­wor­thy infor­ma­tion and informed choic­es by con­sumers have been part of every EU food strat­e­gy, includ­ing the Commission’s lat­est “Vision for Agri­cul­ture and Food”.

With great fan­fare, indus­try organ­i­sa­tions are say­ing peo­ple should stop ask­ing how their food was pro­duced. They should back down on want­i­ng to know what they’re eat­ing.

All sur­veys show that peo­ple want to know about GMOs in their food, even when labelled as ‘con­ven­tion­al-like NGT prod­ucts’ by indus­try advo­cates. Con­sumer groups defend those rights, notably in France and Ger­many.

Why would this not be pos­si­ble? The indus­try names three main rea­sons:

Tech­ni­cal chal­lenges. Because these GMOs are so sim­i­lar to con­ven­tion­al­ly bred plants, com­pa­nies claim they will not be able to ver­i­fy their pres­ence “with ana­lyt­i­cal meth­ods.” This is true to an extent. Some GM foods engi­neered with CRISPR and sim­i­lar meth­ods may involve only small tweaks that are dif­fi­cult to detect. But that is not a new sit­u­a­tion. The same is true for processed prod­ucts like oil from GM soy and sug­ar from GM sug­ar beet.

Con­sumer labelling does not depend on the avail­abil­i­ty of lab­o­ra­to­ry meth­ods. The EU’s organ­ic food label, the ani­mal wel­fare label for eggs, and part­ly the GMO label all depend on doc­u­men­ta­tion. Also, tech­ni­cal chal­lenges in detect­ing GM foods can be over­come with coop­er­a­tion from the respec­tive patent-hold­ers. Two EU research projects—DARWIN and DETECTIVE—are under way to work out rel­e­vant solu­tions.

Unjus­ti­fied addi­tion­al costs. The indus­try says it would have to sep­a­rate GM prod­ucts from non-GM ones “at each stage of the sup­ply chain.” That is true — and exact­ly what is hap­pen­ing today. Whether it is jus­ti­fied depends on who you ask. The phys­i­cal seg­re­ga­tion of GM food suc­cess­ful­ly serves a mar­ket of 500 mil­lion peo­ple, who have become accus­tomed to their right to know.

Con­sumer con­fu­sion. The pro­posed new cat­e­go­ry of “con­ven­tion­al-like” GM plants could indeed con­fuse con­sumers. But why should they ignore the fact that new and unproven genet­ic engi­neer­ing meth­ods have been used to cre­ate their food? Why should they for­get that no safe­ty stud­ies have been con­duct­ed on these GM plants, even though the meth­ods (e.g., CRISPR) used to cre­ate them have been shown to pro­duce many unin­tend­ed and poten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous effects?

The dis­pute over con­sumer labelling and free­dom of choice goes straight to the heart of defend­ing fun­da­men­tal demo­c­ra­t­ic rights, against a cor­po­rate atti­tude of patro­n­is­ing cit­i­zens.

Com­pa­nies must not hide from us how they make the prod­ucts we buy. It is not for them to decide what we buy, and cer­tain­ly not to cur­tail our right to know what ends up on our plates.

In the face of this unprece­dent­ed attack on con­sumer rights, we call on EU deci­sion-mak­ers to defend our right to choose what we eat. They were elect­ed by Euro­pean cit­i­zens — not by multi­na­tion­als. We are hope­ful they will hear our voic­es.

This op-ed has also been pub­lished on Arc2020.eu

Pho­to ©Can­va

to top