Big Food is Spending Millions to Lobby for Less Transparency

Shutterstock.

From GMO labeling to pesticides to the source of the meat you buy, a handful of companies are spending heavily to keep information off your food labels.

By Elizabeth Grossman on August 19, 2015
http://civileats.com/2015/08/19/big-food-is-spending-millions-to-lobby-for-less-transparency/

By all accounts, Americans want a more transparent food system. Recent polling suggests the majority of Americans favor labeling that tells them exactly how and where their food is produced. And yet, several bills are currently moving through Congress that could make it much harder to learn about the source of our food.
These bills would prevent state and local governments from requiring labeling of GMOs; remove country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for most of the meat we buy; and make it harder to know where pesticides are used. The international trade agreements now being negotiated also include provisions that could make such information less available to consumers.
The food industry is spending an enormous amount of money to promote and lobby for this legislation. Food companies shelled out over $100 million in the first six months of 2015 alone.
Businesses and trade groups promoting these policies say putting more information on food labels will send the wrong message about food safety, add costs, and pose barriers to trade. And in some cases, they worry it will open U.S. food producers and other companies to punitive import-export taxes.
But good food advocates disagree. “This is basic transparency,” says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “We’re not saying anything’s unsafe,” says Environmental Working Group (EWG) policy analyst Libby Foley. “We’re saying it’s about consumer choice.”
Here are the numbers the food industry doesn’t want you to see:
GMO Labeling
So far this year, food and beverage companies have spent $51.6 million on a series of lobbying efforts to defeat GMO labeling laws, including the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599), which opponents have dubbed the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” or DARK Act. According to a recent analysis by EWG, nearly a quarter of this money—$12.6 million—comes from just six companies: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Land O’Lakes, and PepsiCo.
Other big spenders in these efforts include the Grocery Manufacturers Association ($5.1 million); American Farm Bureau (nearly $1 million); and the National Restaurant Association ($2 million). Many state farm bureaus have also chipped in—among them, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon. Big name food producers, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Inc., Mondelez, Nestlé, OceanSpray, Safeway, and Unilever, are all spending significant amounts money on this issue as well.
In addition to direct lobbying of members of the House, Senate, and other federal policy-makers, some of the groups lobbying for H.R. 1599 have come together as the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, running a consumer-oriented website, as well as television ads and a social media campaign. And the money tallied by EWG was spent specifically on federal lobbying so it doesn’t include the millions spent last fall to defeat state GMO labeling measures—like those in Colorado and Oregon or on the ongoing legal challenge to the GMO-labeling bill passed in Vermont.
H.R. 1599 passed the House on in July. No companion bill has yet been introduced in the Senate.
An additional $4.1 million has been spent so far this year by companies to promote genetically engineered salmon, with most of this coming from the Biotechnology Industry Association, which is also supporting H.R. 1599. There’s also plenty of lobbying going on to keep GE salmon out of Pacific coast waters, where salmon fishing is big business.
Meat Labeling
Many of the same companies and organizations spending heavily to block GMO labeling requirements have also been lobbying to repeal existing country of origin labeling (COOL) requirements for beef, chicken, and pork through the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 (H.R. 2393).
Among them are the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Campbell Soup, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, and Unilever. They are joined by others in the meat business, including Tyson Foods, Smithfield, Hormel, the National Pork Producers Association, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as well as Walmart and the big-spending U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Together, the supporters of this bill have spent at least $54.2 million.*
Those spending money to repeal COOL argue that labeling meat with the country of origin would increase costs for producers and therefore for consumers—with the threat that tariffs could be levied against U.S. producers if the labeling is found in violations of World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions.
Canada and Mexico have argued that COOL labels hurts sales of their meat by signaling to U.S. consumers that the product is somehow less safe or desirable. While the Obama administration is defending the existing policy, meat and other food producers fear that if Canada and Mexico prevail, those countries would impose costly tariffs that would harm U.S. exports. H.R. 2393 passed the house in June, but its companion Senate bill, S. 1844 has not yet had a committee hearing.
And a heads up: Provisions in the TTP and TTIP could facilitate similar policies to those of the WTO—making it possible, not only for countries but also individual companies to file objections to labeling if it harms trade.
Pesticides
Yet another bill that would curtail access to agricultural information is the Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2015 (S. 1500). It would eliminate permits now required to discharge pesticides into rivers, lakes, streams, and other bodies of water regulated under the Clean Water Act.
CropLife America—a trade association for agri-chemical producers and users—explains that the bill is designed to reverse a 2009 federal court decision that directed the EPA to require permits from pesticide applicators who spray over “navigable waters.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) has called S.1500 “a far-reaching bill that is dangerous to people” that would “would allow pesticides to be sprayed where kids are swimming, which would expose them to substances that are known to be toxic.”
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) says the bill would remove the EPA’s ability to monitor and take action on waterways contaminated by pesticides. This, said PAN spokesperson Paul Towers, would leave both the EPA and the public “in the dark” and put “the health of waterways and public health in jeopardy.”
Because the bill was just introduced in June, a good accounting of lobbying on its behalf is not yet available through Congressional disclosure filings. But when virtually the same bill was introduced in 2013, it garnered support from agribusinesses and agricultural organizations and trade associations including the American Farm Bureau, CropLife America, Agricultural Retailers Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Monsanto, North Carolina Farm Bureau, National Council of Farmer Co-ops, and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. These groups spent more than $11 million lobbying for the bill during 2013 and 2014.
The fate of all these bills is uncertain given the limited time before Congress adjourns for the year. But given how contentious these issues have become—and what food producers and agribusinesses perceive as high financial stakes—it’s unlikely that they will disappear.
One note of optimism for transparency-in-food-production advocates, but disappointment for Idaho dairy groups, is the ruling earlier this month by the U.S. District Court in Idaho striking down the state’s so-called “ag-gag” law—formally the “Agricultural Security Act” that made illegal undercover documentation of farming operations. Citing First Amendment free speech protections, Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled the bill unconstitutional.
So where does this leave consumers? Right now, the only way to be sure the food you buy doesn’t contain genetically engineered foods is to seek out the USDA’s certified organic and Non-GMO Project‘s GMO-free label. As for meat and fish—if it is not cooked or prepared before it reaches store shelves, its country of origin is probably still labeled. But that could change. And if the new trade agreements go into effect, these and other labeling provisions could be open to challenge.
Meanwhile a sizable fortune is being spent trying to keep this information off food labels. “This has turned into a bigger fight than either side anticipated,” says EWG’s Foley. And that may be one point on which both sides can agree.

*This estimate is based on lobbying expenditures listed on disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate and compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. It is only a partial accounting as this represents spending by 20 of the approximately 100 members of the COOL Reform Coalition that signed a June 8 letter to Congress voicing support for H.R. 2393. This is the same source—and method—that EWG used to estimate spending to oppose GMO labeling bills.

Food industry seeks voluntary GMO labeling - AP

MARY CLARE JALONICK | February 6, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — People who want to know more about genetically modified ingredients in their food would be able to get it on some packages, but not others, under a plan the industry is pushing.
Large food companies worried they might be forced to add "genetically modified" to packaging are proposing voluntary labeling of those engineered foods, so the companies could decide whether to use them or not.
The effort is an attempt to head off state-by-state efforts to require mandatory labeling. Recent ballot initiatives in California and Washington state failed, but several state legislatures are considering labeling requirements, and opponents of engineered ingredients are aggressively pushing for new laws in several states.
The move comes as consumers demand to know more about what's in their food. There's very little science that says genetically engineered foods are unsafe. But opponents say there's too much unknown about seeds that are altered in labs to have certain traits, and that consumers have a right to know if they are eating them. The seeds are engineered for a variety of reasons, many of them to resist herbicides or insects.
Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry's main trade group, said the decision on labels should rest with the Food and Drug Administration, which is set up to assess the safety of foods.
"It does not serve national food safety policy to leave these issues to political campaigns," she said.
The grocery manufacturers announced a partnership with 28 farm and food industry groups Thursday to push for the legislation. The groups include the National Corn Growers Association, the National Restaurant Association and the National Beverage Association, all industries that have seen pushback from consumers over modified ingredients.
The groups say mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking that engineered ingredients are unsafe.
The state laws could also create a complicated patchwork of labeling laws that would "increase, rather than reduce, consumer confusion," said Kraig Naasz of the American Frozen Food Institute, another member of the coalition.
The industries are lobbying members of Congress to introduce and pass a bill that would require FDA to create a voluntary label that would take precedence over any state laws. They are also pushing for FDA to do a safety review of new genetically engineered ingredients before they are sold in food. So far, FDA has not found safety issues with modified ingredients.
Theresa Eisenman, a spokeswoman for FDA, said food manufacturers are already allowed to label their foods as free of genetically modified ingredients. She said the agency "recognizes and appreciates" consumer interest in the issue.
"FDA has received citizen petitions regarding genetically engineered foods, including the labeling of such foods," she said. "The agency is currently considering those petitions and at this time has not made a decision, in whole or in part, regarding the petitions."
The companies are facing pressure from retailers as the conversation about modified ingredients has grown louder. Whole Foods announced last year that it plans to label GMO products in all its U.S. and Canadian stores within five years.
And some companies have decided to just remove the ingredients altogether, so no labels will be necessary. General Mills recently announced it would no longer use GMOs in its original Cheerios recipe.
It is unclear whether there is support for voluntary labels in Congress. Many lawmakers from farm states have defended the technology.
In May, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. that would have allowed states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.
Sanders' amendment to a wide-ranging farm bill was an attempt to clarify that states can require the labels, as several legislatures have moved toward putting such laws into place. Senators from farm states that use a lot of genetically modified crops strongly opposed the amendment, saying the issue should be left up to the federal government and that labels could raise costs for consumers.
The final farm bill, which Congress passed and sent to President Barack Obama this week, does not weigh in on genetically modified ingredients.
Opponents of the modified ingredients say the sentiment may change in Congress as more states wade into the labeling debate. Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington advocacy group that supports labeling, says he expects around 30 state legislatures to consider the issue this year.
Maine and Connecticut have already enacted labeling laws for engineered foods, but they won't go into effect until other states in the region follow suit. And Oregon may be the next state to consider a ballot measure on the issue.
Faber says momentum is building across the country for labeling, "not because consumers are concerned about the technology, but because consumers are demanding to know more and more about their food."

Get the facts! 64 countries know what a GMO is because it is labeled. You deserve to know too! Join us for the public hearing on H.112 on Thursday. Details: http://bit.ly/gmopublichearing

Breaking News! Connecticut becomes first state to require labeling of GMO’s.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signs GMo bill in Fairfield on Wednesday. (Picture courtesy from governor's Twitter account)

FAIRFIELD, CT (WFSB) -

Connecticut has become a pioneer in food labeling as it is the first state to pass legislation to make companies say if their products contain genetically modified organisms or GMOs.

GMOs are used to help plants be resistant to herbicides and pesticides, but it's done by taking DNA from a bacteria or a virus, which is inserted into the seed. GMOs are commonly found in  corn, soy, canola and sugar.

Gov. Dannel Malloy held a ceremonial bill signing in Fairfield on Wednesday to commemorate a bill that requires certain foods intended for humans to be clearly marked that it is entirely or partially genetically engineered.

"People need to demand GMO labeling," Malloy said. "Some companies are doing this and we need to move in that direction."

According to the statement, Connecticut's law goes into effect after four other states enacted similar legislation.

"I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require the labeling of (Genetically Modified Organisms)," Malloy said in a statement. "The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers' right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action."

In addition, a combination of northeastern states with a combined population of at least 20 million, including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, must adopt similar laws.

Officials said the bill also includes language that will protect local farmers to ensure regional adoption of the new labeling system before it will require local farms to analyze and label genetically engineered products.

Buying foods that are organic has become popular and in health food stores, it's not common to find products that are already labeled GMO-free.

Lisa Storch, who owns the Catch A Healthy Habit in Fairfield, said more and more people want to know what's in the foods they eat.

"It's little steps at a time," Storch said. "(We are) trying different avenues as far as healthy eating and what works for you."