Washington Initiative 522 on GMO Labeling

Last year there was much discussion on California's Prop 37, which would have mandated labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.  After enjoying strong a strong lead in the polls, Prop 37 actually failed to garner a majority of votes, and thus did not become law.   

One year later, Washington State now has a similar initiative up for vote (the text of the law is here; a few more details are here).  The issues at play are largely the same as those in California.  As I wrote then, the ultimate cost impacts will depend critically on how retailers chose to respond to the mandatory label, should the initiative pass.

One thing that makes the WA initiative different than the one on California is the sheer size of the state.  If Prop 37 had passed in California, it likely would have had important implications for the rest of the U.S., both because California is such a large agricultural producer and because they are such a large consumer of agricultural products.  WA, by contrast, is a much smaller state, population-wise, and they comparatively grown small amounts of corn and soybeans - the primarily GE food crops grown in the U.S. (WA grows a lot of wheat, but no GE wheat is commercially for sale in the US) . So, it is less clear what impact passage of I-522 would have for the rest of us.  Would it be worth it for Frito-Lay, Coca-Cola, Kellogg et al. to reformulate only for WA?  Would they only add a label in that state?  Would they pull out of WA all together?  Nobody knows.

I've received a couple calls from reporters asking about potential impacts on farmers and whether there is really a "zero tolerance" limit.  My thought on I-522 are largely the same as they were several months ago in relation to Prop 37: 

It is true Prop 37 doesn't literally force processors and retailers to adopt more expensive non-GE products but that may be the ultimate consequence (or it may not - but we have to keep open the possibility).  It is also true that Prop 37 doesn't literally impose zero tolerance but that may well be the ultimate consequence.  

Truth is we don't really know.  But, consider a possible chain of events at some point in the future.  Despite the wording of the law, some individual in CA tests and finds that a non-labeled product contains GE (ANY trace of GE no matter how small).  The manufacturer of the product is then sued.  Then, it would be up to the manufacturer to provide all the sworn statements of unintentional use of GE.  But, then how do you prove “unintentional” or "accidental"? This is especially [true] when every farmer (who provides the sworn statement) knows there is some chance the seed they plant contains at least some small traces of GE.  Even if the manufacturer withstands the legal challenge, non-trivial legal costs must be incurred to prove innocence.  Moreover, if one reads the full text of the law, they can see  that after July 1, 2019, the exception for "unintentional" use disappears - making the tolerance effectively zero at that time, 

It is that sort of reading and reasoning that I think folks are referring to (or at least that I am referring to) when saying that Prop 37 imposes zero-tolerance.   

Overall, it is difficult to know what effects passage of I-522 would have.  There is some chance manufactures will simply add the "contains GE label", most consumers will ignore it, and life goes on as usual (this seem to be what is implied will happen by the statements of many initiative supporters).  There is also a chance manufacturers will try to avoid the label for fear of losing customers, the entire production system eschews biotechnology, food prices go up, and farmers are less profitable (this seems to be what is implied by many opponents of the initiative).  Or anything in between could happen too.

One argument, which I find somewhat compelling is that food and biotech companies are hurting themselves by not being forthright about their products by getting on board with labeling.  It seems by fighting the label they have something to hide.  Why not spend money educating consumers rather than fighting the initiatives?  

The counter argument, which I find more persuasive, relates to one's vision for the proper role of government.  What do we want to allow the government to MANDATE companies say - to compel speech?  A case could be made that such a policy is appropriate when there are legitimate safety or health risks, for example transfats or sugar content.  But, the best science shows no such worries for biotechnology.  

Here is what Cass Sunstein, Obama's former "regulatory czar" had to say on the issue: 

The argument for labeling GM foods would be compelling if they posed risks to human health. This is, of course, a scientific question, and most scientists now believe that GM food, as such, doesn’t pose health risks. Last October, the American Association for the Advancement of Science spoke unequivocally. In its words, “the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

and

These arguments aren’t unreasonable, but they run into a serious problem, which is that GM labels may well mislead and alarm consumers, especially (though not only) if the government requires them. Any such requirement would inevitably lead many consumers to suspect that public officials, including scientists, believe that something is wrong with GM foods -- and perhaps that they pose a health risk.

Government typically requires labeling because it has identified such a risk (as in the case of tobacco) or in order to enable people to avoid or minimize costs (as in the case of fuel-economy labels).

A compulsory GM label would encourage consumers to think that GM foods should be avoided. This concern is hardly speculative. In Europe, compulsory labels have lead many retailers, anticipating an adverse consumer reaction, not to include GM foods on their shelves. In the U.S., the result could be economic damage to producers and consumers alike. And if consumers want to avoid GM foods, they can already purchase foods labeled “100 percent organic,” which lack GM ingredients.

In the abstract, it is hard to disagree with the claim that consumers “have a right to know.” But with respect to food, there are countless facts that people might conceivably want to know, and government doesn’t require them to be placed on labels. Unless science can identify a legitimate concern about risks to health or the environment, the argument for compulsory GM labels rests on weak foundations.

My thinking parallels Sunstein's, and that is why I tend to argue against mandated GMO labels (voluntary, however, is fair game).  

And, a reminder, no, I don't work for Monsanto.

Effect of GMOs in the Developing World

To hear many anti-GMO activists talk, one would think farmers are merely whims of greedy agribusinesses.  They have no power or choice to deny Monsanto.  In the developing world, we hear such outlandish assertions as GMOs causing suicide (see this paper for a thorough debunking of that claim).

The truth is that farmers adopted GMOs because they thought it would make them money, save them time, and improve their health and that of the environment.  Yes, Monsanto has made some money along the way, but farmers have benefited too (so too have consumers I might add).   

For the latest evidence on that front, I ran across this research by Kousesr and Qaim in the journal Agricultural Economics.  Here's the abstract:

Data from a farm survey and choice experiment are used to value the benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan. Unlike previous research on the economic impacts of Bt, which mostly concentrated on financial benefits in terms of gross margins, we also quantify and monetize health and environmental benefits associated with technology adoption. Due to lower chemical pesticide use on Bt cotton plots, there are significant health advantages in terms of fewer incidents of acute pesticide poisoning, and environmental advantages in terms of higher farmland biodiversity and lower soil and groundwater contamination. Farmers themselves value these positive effects at US$ 79 per acre, of which half is attributable to health and the other half to environmental improvements. Adding average gross margin gains of US$ 204 results in aggregate benefits of US$ 283 per acre, or US$ 1.8 billion for the total Bt cotton area in Pakistan.

The Psychology of GMO Aversion

Maria Konnicova recently published an interesting post at the New Yorker entitled THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DISTRUSTING G.M.O.S.

Here is one tidbit:  

Psychologists have long observed that there is a continuum in what we perceive as natural or unnatural. As the psychologist Robert Sternberg wrote in 1982, the natural is what we find more familiar, while what we consider unnatural tends to be more novel—perceptually and experientially unfamiliar—and complex, meaning that more cognitive effort is required to understand it. The natural is seen as inherently positive; the unnatural is not. And anything that involves human manipulation is considered highly unnatural—like, say, G.M.O.s, even though genetically modified food already lines the shelves at grocery stores. As Michael Specter putit, “The history of agriculture is the history of humans breeding seeds and animals to produce traits we want in our crops and livestock.”

The author goes on to talk about the psychology research showing that people look at "unknown" or "novel" risks differently than those that seem more familiar or controllable.  It also appears acceptance of risk is related to perceived necessity.     

I have argued in several talks I've made recently that these are precisely the reasons for the gap between farmer attitudes and general consumer attitudes toward biotechnology,  growth hormones, pesticides, and gestation crates just to name a few.  The fact that farmers are around these technologies all the time and that they seem them as "necessary" goes a long way toward explaining their acceptance.  To this I'd add in some of Jonathan Haidt's observations about moral intuitions.  Here is what I said about that a while back:

What struck me as I read Haidt was his discussion on moral disagreement.  It is very had to change someone’s intuitions about what is right or wrong.  If we can’t even articulate the reasons why we think something is wrong, how can someone possibly make a compelling, reasoned counter-argument?  Haidt argues that trying to use reason to change someone’s moral intuition is a bit like trying to make a dog happy by grabbing its tail and wagging it. 

So, how is it that I intuitively feel so differently about various aspects of food production (e.g., biotechnology, irradiation, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) than others who are revolted by the same issues?  When I think about these issues, I am not appalled; I don’t feel any disgust.  But, I suspect I’m in the minority of Americans. 

I gave the Shepard lecture last night to a group of students and faculty at Kenyon College about the future of food.  Although we had a civil, productive discussion, it’s safe to say that many of the students in the room had different moral intuitions about these topics and I do.  Their moral intuitions are that many modern food technologies are self-evidently wrong (while other issues like local, organic, and natural are self-evidently right). 

How is it that our moral intuitions can be so different?  I grew up around “big ag.”  I’ve personally sprayed Monsanto’s Round-Up on hundreds of acres of cotton weeds.  I’ve personal castrated farm animals to limit aggression and off-tasting meat.  I’ve personally had to throw away thousands of pounds of salsa that grew mold because adequate levels of preservatives weren't added.  I’ve personally met and know people who work for Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, etc.  I grew up going to school with kids whose parents were immigrant farm laborers living at or below poverty. 

Now, that doesn’t necessarily make my intuitions about modern food production somehow objectively correct.  But, I at least can lay claim to the fact that they are based on actual life experiences and insights. 

 I've previously touched on some of the psychology factors driving aversion to risk and to GMOs here and here.

What are the impacts of mandatory GMO labeling?

Genetically modified (GM) food products and their labeling have become a major policy issue with impassioned public debates. We explore the impact of different labeling regimes on consumer attitudes towards GM products and consumer welfare. Our experimental results illustrate that these consumer attitudes do not follow the Uniform distribution as has often been assumed in the literature but instead fit an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution. If a Uniform distribution is assumed, the advantage of mandatory labeling would be exaggerated. Using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution our simulation results demonstrate that voluntary labeling is superior to mandatory labeling with the higher separation cost, while mandatory labeling is not necessarily better with lower separation cost. Therefore, the governments of China and other countries with similar consumer characteristics should consider voluntary labeling for GM food while encouraging innovations that reduce the price of GM food as well as controlling the opportunistic behavior of its producers so as to enhance the advantage of voluntary labeling

That's from a paper just published Li Zhao, Haiying Gua, Chengyan Yue, and David Ahlstrom in the journal Food Policy. 

Locally-produced as compost the solution to global warming?

Gary Paul Nabhan published an op-ed yesterday in the NYT on global warming, agriculture, and farm policy.  Some of his suggestions, such as reducing regs and restrictions on "gray water" might have some merit (assuming food safety risks can be adequately handled) but most of his suggestions presume government is the only answer.

First, let's look at his premise that global warming will invariably lead to a "coming food crisis".  In actuality, a warming planet will produce some winners and some losers, and may be net-plus for agriculture.  It is possible that farmers in Arizona, where Nabhan resides, will lose from higher temperatures, but there likely to be other locations, like Canada, where agriculture benefits.  There is a lively debate among economists, fought out in the pages of the American Economic Review over precisely this issue (see the papers here or here suggesting climate change will benefit US agriculture or here, here, or here suggesting the reverse).  It would have been nice to see some discussion on this issue rather than simply claiming a disaster is coming.

Where things really go off base, however, are in the policy prescriptions.  Here are a few with some brief comments. 

First, he says about his strategies that: 

The problem is that several agribusiness advocacy organizations have done their best to block any federal effort to promote them

I'm not sure exactly what "blocks" these groups have but in the way of Nabhan's ideas, but more generally several farmer groups like the idea of carbon trading because they'd get paid for sequestration.   

His first policy is to: 

promote the use of locally produced compost to increase the moisture-holding capacity of fields, orchards and vineyards.

I'm not sure why the compost needs to be local if it is really so beneficial.  It is also unclear why farmers wouldn't source these materials now if they improved yield and limited chances of loss. I suspect if research showed these techniques could improve the moisture-holding capacity of soils, there wouldn't need to be much promotion or subsidy for farmers to adopt.

Then, we are told: 

the farm bill should include funds from the Strikeforce Initiative of the Department of Agriculture to help farmers transition to forms of perennial agriculture — initially focusing on edible tree crops and perennial grass pastures 

However, if the problem is that conventional crops are not as profitable in a warming environment, there needn't be a Strikeforce Initiative or top-town planning; farmers will willingly seek out those alternatives they can grow most profitably given altered weather conditions.

Then, we have another crisis: 

We also need to address the looming seed crisis. Because of recent episodes of drought, fire and floods, we are facing the largest shortfall in the availability of native grass, forage legume, tree and shrub seeds in American history

and

the National Plant Germplasm System, the Department of Agriculture’s national reserve of crop seeds, should be charged with evaluating hundreds of thousands of seed collections for drought and heat tolerance, as well as other climatic adaptations — and given the financing to do so.

Don't you think Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other seed producers have a HUGE incentive to store and develop crop varieties that are likely to be more profitable in a warmer climate?  I'm not exactly sure what is described here as a "seed crisis" that profit-making seed companies (and University breeders) aren't already thinking about.  Moreover, if the problem is really so dire as Nabhan suggest, why doesn't he suggest using all methods - including biotechnology - to increase drought resistance of crop varieties?  

The answer to that last question, I think, says it all.  I suspect Nabhan doesn't support use of biotechnology to solve the problem he sets up because his issue isn't really with the global warming effects on crop production per se, but rather it seems he sees an opportunity to re-engineer a food system to his liking using subsidies, regulations, and Strikeforce Initiatives, without giving much thought into the effects of such a system on global hunger and the price consumers pay for food.  It is all together fanciful to imagine the food system he proposes as bring down food prices, which, ironically, Nabhan, sets up as being the problem he aims to solve.