Incorrect reports say that California's Prop 37 has zero tolerance for accidental GMO content

California voters are considering a ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling for foods that contain Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) ingredients.

A recent Oakland Tribune editorial against the initiative gets key facts wrong. The editorial, which was widely published in other newspapers, claims that the proposal has a zero-tolerance for accidental GMO content in foods that aren't labeled as containing GMOs. Such a policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label "may contain GMOs," simply out of fear of litigation.  But the editorial is mistaken. The initiative rightly allows foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs to carry a "non-GMO" label.

The initiative has several moderate and reasonable features.  For example, it would require genetically modified animals -- such as a fast-growing genetically modified salmon -- to contain a "GMO" label, but it would not require such a label for ordinary beef that had been fed genetically modified corn and soybeans.  A farmer or food manufacturer would not have to do any fancy testing to prevent accidental contamination with GMOs (for example by drifting seeds from a neighboring field, or from GMO-containing dust left over on farm machinery).  It suffices for the food producers to claim in writing that they used crop varieties and food ingredients that they reasonably believed were not genetically modified.  For example, a food manufacturer purchasing non-GMO corn would have to get the supplier to sign such an affidavit, but would not have to do scientific testing.  Some anti-GMO advocates might have wanted stricter rules, but there are good common-sense reasons why the initiative took these positions.

In this context, the Oakland Tribune editorial is particularly disappointing.  Whether you support or oppose GMOs, it is important to explain the initiative clearly so that our democracy can function as well as possible.

The Tribune editorial echoed a point that was also made in a recent working paper by the highly esteemed agricultural economist Colin Carter and several coauthors.  They wrote:

The California initiative would implement a zero-tolerance policy for accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances, even if the U.S. government has approved the GM material for human consumption.

But, after reading the text of the initiative, this seems incorrect. I wrote Professor Carter to ask about this, and his brief response by email while traveling made several good points in opposition to Prop 37, but didn't really back up this claim that the initiative takes a zero-tolerance position on accidental contamination.  Essentially, opponents fear that firms will anticipate legal problems and prophylactically label their products with "may contain GMO" labels, but I cannot really find a reasonable basis for that fear in the initiative itself.

Here's a subtle but important point.  A food manufacturer with a complex ingredient list, including corn or soybean ingredients from commodity sources, may have to use a "may contain GMO" label, but that's not a policy error.  Given that most U.S. corn and soybeans are produced with GMO varieties, it really is true that such products may contain GMOs, so the label is correct.  A food manufacturer who has made reasonable effort to use non-GMO ingredients is permitted under this initiative to use a "non-GMO" label.  I really don't see any part of the initiative that requires these essentially non-GMO foods to be labeled as "may contain GMOs" merely out of caution.

There are good reasons why some people will oppose this California Prop 37.  GMO technologies may well not be dangerous to humans.  Or they may have some risks and tradeoffs, just as non-GMO foods do, that are worthwhile because of the production advantages from the new technology.  Or, as economists in particular are likely to point out, it may be that a well-crafted voluntary labeling regime would have functioned as well as mandatory labeling without as much burden on society.  Still, opponents should make those points clearly rather than mischaracterizing Prop 37. 

FERN asks: Whose Side is the American Farm Bureau On?

The Nation this week explores the American Farm Bureau, which, through affiliated organizations, is simultaneously one of the most important farm lobby groups and also a major insurance operation.  The story is by Pulitzer-winning writer Ian Shearn.  It was supported by the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN).

Interesting passages address influence over the upcoming Farm Bill ...

In Washington, the 2012 Farm Bill has predictably been a top priority for the Farm Bureau lobby team. They have surprised players from both sides of the debate by conceding cuts in traditional subsidies in exchange for a large expansion of subsidized crop insurance that protects against disasters and falling prices at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $9 billion a year. The tactical, philosophical shift garnered praise even from Farm Bureau adversaries. Nonetheless, it should be noted that crop insurance is a small, but significant piece of Farm Bureau insurance companies’ portfolio. In 2011, they collected over $300 million in crop insurance premiums. 

... and contribution to the tenor of U.S. agricultural policy debate:

American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman was succinct, almost militant in his opening address last year at the group’s annual meeting: “We will not stand idly by while opponents of today’s American agriculture…try to drag us down…try to bury us in bureaucratic red tape and costly regulation—and try to destroy the most productive and efficient agricultural system in the world,” he said.

Federal government says all sorts of things about soy milk

Mark Bittman this week describes how he overcame years of heartburn by giving up milk.  Though the NYT columnist agrees this experience hardly counts as a controlled experiment, it does point his critical attention toward USDA's dietary guidance message about dairy.

Today the Department of Agriculture’s recommendation for dairy is a mere three cups daily — still 1½ pounds by weight — for every man, woman and child over age 9. This in a country where as many as 50 million people are lactose intolerant, including 90 percent of all Asian-Americans and 75 percent of all African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Jews. The myplate.gov site helpfully suggests that those people drink lactose-free beverages. (To its credit, it now counts soy milk as “dairy.”)

There’s no mention of water, which is truly nature’s perfect beverage; the site simply encourages us to switch to low-fat milk. 

Regarding MyPlate's inclusion of soy milk in the dairy group, however, not all federal government messaging seems to agree.

Soybean checkoff message

Like Bittman and MyPlate, the United Soybean Board also has high praise for soy milk. The board is a government-sponsored checkoff program, which has authority from Congress to issue federal government messages in favor of soybeans using money from a mandatory assessment on soybean producers. From the soybean checkoff website link we learn:

Soymilk is a great source of high-quality soy protein, frequently fortified with calcium and vitamin D for bone health, and an option for the lactose-intolerant.

Dairy checkoff message 

But the federal government's dairy checkoff program disagrees.  The program has authority from Congress to issue federal government messages in favor of dairy products using money from a mandatory assessment on dairy producers.  The dairy checkoff program has a bitterly sarcastic satirical flash-based interactive website, mocking soy milk for its sugar content, long ingredient list, and food science chemistry manipulations.

Mixed messages

By using checkoff programs to sponsor contradictory messages for different commodities -- while approving each message as "government speech" -- the federal government serves consumers poorly.  When will these programs be reformed?

House Agriculture Committee to propose deep cuts to SNAP

In contrast with the medium-sized cuts to SNAP proposed by the Senate (see earlier post), the House Agriculture Committee today proposed deep cuts.

"Do Republicans in Congress want to fix the food stamp program — or punish it?," asks David Rogers at Politico:

That’s the question facing the House Agriculture Committee leadership as it rolls out its plan this week to cut farm subsidies together with about $16 billion in 10-year savings from food stamps — also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Politico account portrays House Agriculture Committee chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) as a relative moderate, compared to House leadership that almost appears to want to sink Farm Bill legislation for the year.

The story quotes Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) to illustrate some Republicans' animosity toward the nation's most important anti-hunger program:

“Americans, working Americans, the middle income and low-income working Americans — they are out there doing the best they can and struggling — are sick and tired of watching the abuses of the system,” Scott said. “I just want to say this one more time. You can’t feed the hungry by starving the farmer.”

"Starving the farmer" is quite some rhetoric. Net farm income this year is $91.7 billion, the second highest on record in nominal terms. For the commercial farm households who receive the highest level of subsidy, average farm income in 2010 (the most recent year available) was $135,000 and average household income was $185,000.  The many farmers who are "starving," relatively speaking, get much lower subsidies.

I am surprised that the politics of this works out well for the House Republicans. If the point is to protect farm programs and taxpayers by sticking it to poor people, it would still seem necessary to craft a bill that actually can pass. Tom Laskawy writes at Grist:

I would argue that the cuts to food stamps will be a non-starter for numerous House Democrats — many of whose votes will be needed to pass the bill, probably ending hopes for a new farm bill before the election.

Picking a no-holds-barred brawl with the Senate, leading to the bill's failure this year, drawing the wider public's scrutiny to farm policy, seems likely to harm the constituencies of rural and urban legislators alike.  But perhaps they see something I don't.

Farm Bill update

The Senate is debating the 2012 Farm Bill, which reauthorizes agriculture, conservation, and nutrition assistance programs for another five years. You can read coverage at Politico, the Washington Post, the Food Politics blog, and Roll Call.

Overall, the Farm Bill is likely to save some taxpayer money by replacing some agricultural subsidies with new crop insurance programs.  These government subsidized crop insurance programs are likely to cover "shallow losses" -- comparatively modest losses that don't meet the threshold for serious losses already covered.  These new crop insurance subsidies may be a little less expensive than the crop subsidies they replace, but they still reflect the agriculture industry's capture of legislators, who can be persuaded to do the industry's bidding, rather than representing sound policy.

Senate leaders agreed to consider a list of 73 amendments. You can follow the specific votes on the Senate website. If I understand correctly, an amendment to approve a compromise between the egg industry and animal welfare organizations regarding treatment of chickens was not on the list of amendments for consideration, perhaps because it was blocked by hardliners in other meat industries who oppose such compromises. An amendment to protect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from medium-sized cuts failed (it would have saved the money by reining in the new crop insurance subsidies). An amendment to limit the size of payments in a marketing loan subsidy program passed.

The DeMint amendment that I discussed recently failed. DeMint (R-SC) noted that checkoff programs claim to have enthusiastic support from producers. If this were true, surely a voluntary contribution would be sufficient, right? Yet, only 20 Senators, all Republicans, backed DeMint's effort to make the contributions voluntary. My skeptical view of checkoff programs seems to have more friends at the Heritage Foundation than among the progressive Senators who ought to speak up for good governance and a coherent federal government message on this public health issue.

Liberate the soybean farmers!

The American Soybean Association (ASA) this week slammed Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) for proposing that checkoff contributions should be voluntary.

At present, the checkoff programs use the federal government's power of taxation to collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year in mandatory assessments from producers -- whether the producers want to contribute or not -- to be spent on advertising, marketing, research, and plenty of overhead.

The checkoff programs were the focus of scrutiny by USDA's Inspector General, who determined in a March report (.pdf) that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) "needs to improve its governance over the boards."  AMS took some steps in 2010 to increase oversight and plans to release more detail about procedures the boards should follow in the near future.  A key example in the report came from the soybean checkoff.  According to the Inspector General:

A recent OIG investigative review reported that a subcontractor of the USB [the soybean checkoff board], the United States Soybean Export Council, used subcontracts as a mechanism for paying employees unauthorized bonuses totaling approximately $302,000. The Council’s executives did not obtain authorization from the USB to pay the bonuses. 

The American Soybean Association's vociferous email this week is misleading on several points.

In the email, ASA President Steve Wellman said, “The checkoff is not a tax. It is not something that is imposed upon us as farmers. Rather, it allows farmers to invest our own dollars to conduct research, build markets and create new uses for soy.” I cannot figure out who Wellman thinks he is fooling, checkoff farmers or the general public? For farmers who choose not to contribute voluntarily, the checkoff payment is imposed. The U.S. Department of Justice enforces the mandatory assessments. Although the checkoff collections do not appear in the federal government's official tax accounts, that omission is itself a scandal. In plain English, the checkoff is a tax.

The ASA email continues, “With oversight provided by USDA, producers have taken it upon themselves to fund over $905 million of research, promotion and consumer education programs annually through checkoff activities at no cost to the federal government.” Is that really the number? $905 million?! The USDA Inspector General's report said the soybean oversight problems mentioned above contributed to the IG's concern that "oversight controls were not adequate to prevent or detect the potential misuse of funds."  I would not say that USDA oversight strengthens the case for a mandatory assessment.

Describing the IG report and the soybean checkoff problems in particular, syndicated agricultural policy columnist Alan Guebert wrote in April, "When federal auditors examine almost any aspect of the 18 checkoffs created by Congress, they usually find the worst of times: funds misspent on illegal travel, subcontracts used to funnel money for unauthorized bonuses, no procedures to track money and audit rules so porous that a checkoff-bought Sherman tank could clank through most checkoffs without a question or an eyebrow getting raised."

In DeMint's proposed amendment to the Farm Bill, checkoff contributions would be voluntary and would no longer be enforced by the federal government's power of taxation.  Imagine that! Like every other industry, farmers would be free to contribute or not contribute, as they prefer, to private-sector marketing efforts.

What ban?

Everybody seems to be saying that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed to ban sodas in containers larger than 16 ounces.

What ban?

My version: Bloomberg has proposed a cup-size restriction for selected soda sales in restaurants, movie theaters, and vending carts. 

You may agree or disagree with this proposed rule.  All I want to say is that trying out the rule has some merit.  There is a large literature showing that our brains mis-estimate the food energy content in large beverages, and our bodies physiologically mis-regulate liquid Calories.  Quite possibly, people will get as much -- maybe even more -- utility or satisfaction from a smaller cup.  Quite possibly, a smaller cup will be as profitable for NYC businesses.  Quite possibly, this rule offers a modest public health benefit at reasonably low cost in terms of money and personal well-being.  All of these possibilities are eminently testable.  I think it would be great to see NYC try out this policy on a pilot basis, and do a high-quality study showing the impact on health and economic outcomes.  Pursuing this pilot is a sober and sensible proposal.

If the pilot succeeds in promoting public health with few harmful side-effects for businesses and customer satisfaction, I would favor it.

I am not surprised that right-wing critics have gone all Defcon 1 about this proposal.  They say this proposal will cause a loss of liberty.  Puh-lease.  We are talking about the difference between a 12-oz and a 20-oz cup of soda in a movie theater.  We have a thousand personal liberties to worry about long before I will start to worry about the right to a particular soda cup size.

What really surprises me is that progressive supporters of the rule endorse the right-wing narrative about how this proposal will affect liberty.  What do I mean?  Consider Mark Bittman's column at the NYT this week:

On a more personal level, we hear things like, “if people want to be obese, that’s their prerogative.”Certainly. And if people want to ride motorcycles without helmets or smoke cigarettes that’s their prerogative, too. But it’s the nanny-state’s prerogative to protect the rest of us from their idiotic behavior....  To (loosely) paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, your right to harm yourself stops when I have to pay for it. And just as we all pay for the ravages of smoking, we all pay for the harmful effects of Coke, Snapple and Gatorade.

In essense, Mark Bittman agrees with conservative critics that the cup-size rule is part of a broader agenda to forbid personal choices that could make us fat. Bittman says it is okay for the government to take away our liberty to make such choices, because we share the same insurance risk pools, so one person's medical costs affect another person's taxes and insurance premiums.

I don't think shared risk pools should give policy-makers the right to ignore personal choices cavalierly.  When describing sensible public policies that override personal choices, I would not toss in the term "nanny-state."  Unlike "Yankee Doodle" and "queer," there are poor prospects for converting "nanny-state" or "ban" from a term of insult to a term of praise.  A key feature of obesity policy is that many individuals themselves recognize that their short-term impulses are contradicting their own true long-term desires for health and satisfaction and good food and drink.  The NYC proposal may better serve the long-term desires of most people most of the time.

If this cup-size proposal really threatened important personal liberties, I would oppose it.

Why are this policy's supporters undermining its political prospects by making it out to be more than it is?  There is no ban.