SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New DARK Act Would Keep American Consumers on Hold
Mar 16, 2016
The new version of the DARK Act introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) would allow companies to voluntarily rely on toll-free numbers and websites instead of labels to inform American consumers whether their food was produced with genetic engineering.
Under the Roberts proposal, food companies, which have spent more than $100 million fighting mandatory labeling of food with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, would be allowed to voluntarily disclose the presence of GMOs for three years.
If the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that fewer than 70 percent of the "most frequently consumed" packaged foods lacked clear means of disclosure, it could in theory require a mandatory solution - such as mandatory toll-free numbers or websites. But, the test envisioned in the Roberts bill could be easily met by simply including a "may contain" GMOs statement on company websites.
In other words, the "test" is designed to ensure that food companies pass.
Even if the USDA chose to require a mandatory solution, it would not be in place for more than five years. In the meantime, stronger state measures such as Vermont's GMO labeling law would be preempted.
Americans want to know everything about their food -- including what's in it and how it was produced. This is a trend that should be encouraged, not frustrated, because food and farming have enormous impacts on our health and on the environment. Congress has encouraged consumer interest in food by requiring many food disclosures - ranging from the amount of fat, sugar and salt to whether juice was made from concentrate.
Yet as early as today, the Senate may take a step backward by denying people the right to know about the presence of GMOs. Under the Roberts version of the bill we call the Deny Americans the Right Know, or DARK Act, people would have to call a different toll-free number or scan a different website for each and every product - and there's no guarantee GMO information would even be provided. It's ridiculous to expect the American people to wait on hold in grocery aisles or to fumble through websites on mobile phones to find out what's in their food.
But that's exactly what the new version of the DARK Act contemplates, even though nine out of ten Americans consistently tell pollsters they want the right to know and want an on-package disclosure.
Why are food companies fighting our right to know?
Food prices did not increase in the 64 other countries with GMO labeling. People in those nations, which include Russia, China and Brazil, view GMO labels simply as more information -- not a warning.
Studies show that American consumers will not respond to GMO labels by rejecting GMO food or by demanding a fully non-GMO supply chain that would increase food prices.
Shockingly, some food and farm organizations wrongly assume (or fear) that Americans aren't smart enough to make their own food choices.
Today, the Senate should trust Americans to do their homework and let them - even encourage them -- to consider the consequences of their food choices. The Senate should reject the DARK Act.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Scott Faber
Scott Faber is the vice president for government affairs for Environmental Working Group (EWG), a public interest research and advocacy organization that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.
The new version of the DARK Act introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) would allow companies to voluntarily rely on toll-free numbers and websites instead of labels to inform American consumers whether their food was produced with genetic engineering.
Under the Roberts proposal, food companies, which have spent more than $100 million fighting mandatory labeling of food with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, would be allowed to voluntarily disclose the presence of GMOs for three years.
If the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that fewer than 70 percent of the "most frequently consumed" packaged foods lacked clear means of disclosure, it could in theory require a mandatory solution - such as mandatory toll-free numbers or websites. But, the test envisioned in the Roberts bill could be easily met by simply including a "may contain" GMOs statement on company websites.
In other words, the "test" is designed to ensure that food companies pass.
Even if the USDA chose to require a mandatory solution, it would not be in place for more than five years. In the meantime, stronger state measures such as Vermont's GMO labeling law would be preempted.
Americans want to know everything about their food -- including what's in it and how it was produced. This is a trend that should be encouraged, not frustrated, because food and farming have enormous impacts on our health and on the environment. Congress has encouraged consumer interest in food by requiring many food disclosures - ranging from the amount of fat, sugar and salt to whether juice was made from concentrate.
Yet as early as today, the Senate may take a step backward by denying people the right to know about the presence of GMOs. Under the Roberts version of the bill we call the Deny Americans the Right Know, or DARK Act, people would have to call a different toll-free number or scan a different website for each and every product - and there's no guarantee GMO information would even be provided. It's ridiculous to expect the American people to wait on hold in grocery aisles or to fumble through websites on mobile phones to find out what's in their food.
But that's exactly what the new version of the DARK Act contemplates, even though nine out of ten Americans consistently tell pollsters they want the right to know and want an on-package disclosure.
Why are food companies fighting our right to know?
Food prices did not increase in the 64 other countries with GMO labeling. People in those nations, which include Russia, China and Brazil, view GMO labels simply as more information -- not a warning.
Studies show that American consumers will not respond to GMO labels by rejecting GMO food or by demanding a fully non-GMO supply chain that would increase food prices.
Shockingly, some food and farm organizations wrongly assume (or fear) that Americans aren't smart enough to make their own food choices.
Today, the Senate should trust Americans to do their homework and let them - even encourage them -- to consider the consequences of their food choices. The Senate should reject the DARK Act.
Scott Faber
Scott Faber is the vice president for government affairs for Environmental Working Group (EWG), a public interest research and advocacy organization that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.
The new version of the DARK Act introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) would allow companies to voluntarily rely on toll-free numbers and websites instead of labels to inform American consumers whether their food was produced with genetic engineering.
Under the Roberts proposal, food companies, which have spent more than $100 million fighting mandatory labeling of food with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, would be allowed to voluntarily disclose the presence of GMOs for three years.
If the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that fewer than 70 percent of the "most frequently consumed" packaged foods lacked clear means of disclosure, it could in theory require a mandatory solution - such as mandatory toll-free numbers or websites. But, the test envisioned in the Roberts bill could be easily met by simply including a "may contain" GMOs statement on company websites.
In other words, the "test" is designed to ensure that food companies pass.
Even if the USDA chose to require a mandatory solution, it would not be in place for more than five years. In the meantime, stronger state measures such as Vermont's GMO labeling law would be preempted.
Americans want to know everything about their food -- including what's in it and how it was produced. This is a trend that should be encouraged, not frustrated, because food and farming have enormous impacts on our health and on the environment. Congress has encouraged consumer interest in food by requiring many food disclosures - ranging from the amount of fat, sugar and salt to whether juice was made from concentrate.
Yet as early as today, the Senate may take a step backward by denying people the right to know about the presence of GMOs. Under the Roberts version of the bill we call the Deny Americans the Right Know, or DARK Act, people would have to call a different toll-free number or scan a different website for each and every product - and there's no guarantee GMO information would even be provided. It's ridiculous to expect the American people to wait on hold in grocery aisles or to fumble through websites on mobile phones to find out what's in their food.
But that's exactly what the new version of the DARK Act contemplates, even though nine out of ten Americans consistently tell pollsters they want the right to know and want an on-package disclosure.
Why are food companies fighting our right to know?
Food prices did not increase in the 64 other countries with GMO labeling. People in those nations, which include Russia, China and Brazil, view GMO labels simply as more information -- not a warning.
Studies show that American consumers will not respond to GMO labels by rejecting GMO food or by demanding a fully non-GMO supply chain that would increase food prices.
Shockingly, some food and farm organizations wrongly assume (or fear) that Americans aren't smart enough to make their own food choices.
Today, the Senate should trust Americans to do their homework and let them - even encourage them -- to consider the consequences of their food choices. The Senate should reject the DARK Act.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.