GMO Food: 3 Politicians Keeping Labels from the Public

The agriculture and biotech industries are extremely powerful and have used a combination of lobbyists and campaign funding to ensure that GMO foods are not labeled (and therefore, unseen by the public).

Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act

While GMO labeling has been squashed repeatedly at the local level, the issue has now risen to the federal government. On April 24, 2013, Representative Peter DeFazio, Democratic representative from Oregon, and Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California, along with 45 House co-sponsors and 13 Senate co-sponsors, introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. The Act would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly.

The Act was sent to the Health Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At this point, the Right-to-Know Act has not made any further progress, and only has a 6% chance of getting past committee.
The reason the federal government has been slow to act on potentially health-hazardous GMOs is because politicians, primarily controlled by financially powerful GMO producing corporations, desire to have the authority to control what we know about where our food comes from. Indeed, and potentially even more disappointing, even politicians that have historically supported food safety have been swayed into blocking genetically modified food labeling.

Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon

Monsanto, the chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri, is a lobbying powerhouse. The company is known for its influence and control in the political arena because of its broad reach and for the millions of dollars that it contributes to politicians.
Out of all the political candidates that Monsanto donates to, it is not surprising that it has kept the most money closest to home. Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, the Democratic Governor of Missouri, has received the most funding from Monsanto out of all other political candidates. Between 2004 and 2012, Nixon received $44,000 from the agricultural giant.
Indeed, this past January, Missouri became a battleground state for GMO labeling. Senate Bill 155 was proposed to require genetically modified meat or fish produced and sold in Missouri to be accordingly labeled as GMO. The bill did not pass. Missouri is the second largest recipient of political donations from Monsanto. Between 2003 and 2013, Missouri received $621,067 in funds from the company.

Senator Barbara Mikulski

In the Spring of 2013, President Obama signed Spending Bill HR 933 into law. The law maintained automatic budget cuts, however it included a biotech rider that protects corporations that develop and sell genetically modified food. As the Senate Appropriations Committee Chair, Senator Barbara Mikulski received a tremendous amount of criticism for attempting to have her rider to fly under the radar. In her apology for the biotech rider, she explained that it became part of the joint House-Senate agreement and was written with Monsanto representatives before she became the Appropriations Chairwoman. Mikulski has a strong record of food safety and had supported a bill requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish; however, as the Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Mikulski’s first responsibility was to prevent a government shutdown.

Representative Steve King

On May 15, 2013, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill created by Representative Steve King from Iowa passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. The amendment would have taken away the rights of states to pass laws regarding agricultural products that are involved in interstate commerce. Because of the way the amendment is written, it could be used to prohibit GMO labeling at the state level. This is was another attempt by Monsanto to use political control to block labeling efforts at the state level with a national preemptive measure. In September, a bipartisan coalition of Congressmen came together to oppose the King Amendment. Because of its broad language, sweeping implications, and lack of hearing process, the King Amendment has drawn opposition - but it still has the potential to pass.

Conclusion

Although over a million Americans signed the Just Label It petition to the FDA, the agriculture and biotechnology industries have a tremendous amount of power over politicians who ultimately make the decisions about the labeling our food receives. It seems so obvious that we should have the right to know exactly what we are putting in our bodies. If it is not bad for us, why hide it? If it is not a problem, let the market decide.

Unfortunately, seemingly more often than not these days, powerful industry lobbies, controlled by a few individuals, are able to use their money, their power, and influence to get what they want from politicians at the expense of the millions of people they are supposed to represent.