Syngenta Thrive - 4Q/2013 - 8

Policy matters

Label Laws
The efforts to gain GMO food labeling continue with potentially
costly consequences for growers, retailers and consumers.

upporters of Proposition 37, California’s proposed labeling
law for foods containing any genetically modified organism
(GMO), suffered a narrow but very public defeat at the ballot box
in 2012. But failure in one state has not brought an end to the
labeling movement.
Already this year pro-GMO labeling supporters have won
smaller, somewhat hollow victories when first Connecticut and
then Maine passed laws requiring food containing genetically
modified ingredients to be labeled as such. Both laws contain a
requirement that four other states must pass similar laws and that
one of the states, or combination of states, has a population of
more than 20 million people.
Although those restrictions will slow down possible implementation, they show that proponents of GMO food labeling are
persistent and patient, methodically taking their cause to each
state one by one. Voters in Washington state will have their say on
a labeling referendum this November, and proponents are working
to qualify a similar referendum in Oregon for 2014.
“These are not labels that are intended to inform. These are
labels that are intended to scare,” says Cathleen Enright, executive
vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). BIO
helps educate people about genetically modified products.
“Unfortunately, labeling proponents have momentum on their side.”

Ongoing Challenges
Dennis Kelly, state affairs team leader for Syngenta, has seen a
surge of activity in the pro-GMO labeling movement over the last
few years. Each year, he sees a dozen or more labeling bills
introduced in statehouses across the nation.
“They are looking to limit use of the technology by forcing
grocers to label it as such,” Kelly says. “If they can label it, they
will scare some people who won’t buy the product.”
If consumers are scared away from certain ingredients, some
food manufacturers may stop buying those commodities,
eventually forcing producers to grow different varieties or hybrids,
if they want to sell to these food manufacturers, notes Kelly.
Syngenta supports the industry’s position on voluntary labeling
of products, such as “certified organic” and “non-GMO” to meet
the demands of consumers in the marketplace who value those
products. It believes, however, that mandatory labeling should be
limited to information relevant to health, safety and nutrition, as is
currently the U.S. standard.
“From our point of view, we are very proud of the innovation
and technology Syngenta delivers to producers and consumers,”
says Greg Thies, senior director of government relations. “There is
no reason for us to hide that, but putting labels on food is not the
way to do that. Federal food labeling law is specifically aimed at

States with
recent or
currently
pending
GMO food
labeling
legislation

States with
pending bills
States with
passed laws
with caveats
Neighboring
states to which
caveats apply
States with no
labeling bills

| thrive

>>>> 4Q 2013

IllUSTrATION: BAKEr VAIl

Syngenta Thrive - 4Q/2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Syngenta Thrive - 4Q/2013