There’s a controversial bill, HR 1599, named the ”Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” that has passed the US House of Representatives and is now under consideration by the US Senate. To some the title of the bill is Orwellian - its detractors have called it the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” or “Dark Act”. The controversy that surrounds the legislation concerns genetically modified food - otherwise known as “GMOs” (which actually stands for “Genetically Modified Organisms”).

I’m not a scientist, but in my humble opinion too little is known about GMO foods for there to be any “settled science” regarding it. In fact, according to numerous sources there are studies that suggest that GMOs may not be as safe as is claimed. In the interest of full disclosure, I try to avoid consuming GMO products wherever possible. I’m old enough to remember that smoking cigarettes was at one time considered “safe” and I remember reading in Time Magazine in the 1970s that “global cooling” was on its way. Settled science often isn’t.

That said, I fully support your right to consume GMO products if you are willing to assume the risks - as long as I have the right to avoid them. In order to do that, I need proper disclosure. To my mind, one of the few legitimate functions of government is to ensure proper disclosure, thus making informed choices possible. That includes proper labeling.

There are those that argue that the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” is anything but. Having read the bill I would tend to agree. According to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), the “act would pre-empt state-level, mandatory GMO labeling efforts with a wholly voluntary federal standard”. In other words, states and other political subdivisions, such as counties and municipalities, would be prohibited from requiring labels for GMO foods. So much for the Tenth Amendment, states’ rights and the axiom that the government that is closest to the people is the most relevant.

The bill also has a chilling effect on the First Amendment right of free speech. The act presumes that GMO and non-GMO foods are equivalent. From the text of the legislation, section 291B (3) “labeling or advertising material on, or in conjunction with, such covered product shall not suggest either expressly or by implication that covered products developed without the use of genetic engineering are safer or of higher quality than covered products produced from, containing, or consisting of a genetically engineered plant”. It creates barriers for companies that would want to label their products “GMO-free”.

Imagine that - in effect, this legislation makes it illegal for a company to advertise that its non-GMO product is better than a GMO product. In other words, it is legislating that company’s competitive advantage out of existence. It is a crass example of government intervention in the marketplace on behalf of a special interest. So, who benefits from this bill? According to ANH, “the bill is being pushed by the biotech industry and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association”. GMO producers are in effect being protected by the government and consumers are denied the right to know what is in the product.

According to the Organic Consumers Association, in an article on their website that included in its headline, “States’ Rights to Label GMOs in Danger!”, the OCA states that “Monsanto and Big Food spent $29.9 million to sway the 275 U.S. Representatives who voted against your right to know”. Let it be noted that Monsanto is one of the biggest biotech companies in the world and one of the biggest producers of GMO foods.

Now the OCA is a very progressive organization, but it is interesting that they can allude to, or rather invoke a core conservative principle: States’ Rights. I’m glad that there are progressives that are still aware of this concept - States’ Rights - although as with most principles progressives apply them selectively. I might also respectfully point out to the OCA that President Obama, an acknowledged progressive, is referred to in some circles as “the Monsanto man”, having appointed several former executives from that corporation to key regulatory posts. Consistency is not one of their strong suits.

One such appointee was Michael R. Taylor. According to the Food and Drug Administration’s website, Taylor started his career with the FDA as a staff attorney and went on to be a Vice President of Monsanto. He is now back with the FDA appointed by the current administration as Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine. One of his current duties listed on the site is to “plan for new food safety legislation”. The regulations and definitions that pertain to HR 1599 will be provided by agencies such as the FDA. I’m sure you can connect the dots all by yourself. So for those that are calling on President Obama to veto HR 1599 if it gets through the Senate, lots of luck with that.

HR 1599 passed the House by a wide margin 275-150. There were only 12 Republicans that voted against it - none of them were from West Virginia. I’m struggling with the idea that Republicans would vote for a bill that denies free speech AND states’ rights. The bill is now in the Senate.

The “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” shows once again that most lawmakers stick to principle only when it suits them. To hell with my right to know or a producers right to describe their product. These days, all a politician needs to do to legislate away your rights is to invoke phrases like “public health” and “public safety”. The next time you hear a politician use those words you know what they mean.