GEO Watch | Labeling not Costly, Busting Another GMO Myth

Too costly? Really!?

Consumers Union Study

GMO FOOD LABELING? RIGHT-TO-KNOW COST IS $2.43 PER PERSON A YEAR

Devon G. Peña | Seattle, WA | October 4, 2014

According
to a new analysis commissioned by Consumers Union (CU) the
median cost to consumers of state laws requiring labeling of genetically
engineered food is $2.30 per person annually. The report is available online
now here.  The CU study – which includes a comprehensive
annotated bibliography of studies on the economics of labeling – presents a major
scientific rebuke to claims being made by the biotechnology industry.

The
corporate opponents of GMO labeling, including major chain grocers, have repeatedly
misled the public by claiming labeling requirements will significantly increase
consumer costs by hundreds and perhaps even thousands of dollars a year.  

There
is no reliable study proving these claims and the research most often cited by
the promoters of GMO foods is produced by the agro-biotech and corporate food industry
itself or industry-funded groups like as the Washington Research Council – an
organization that specializes in defending corporate interests through
politically-targeted research designed to provide the appearance and veneer of
scientific objectivity for capitalist positions on public policy matters.

The
CU study, released Oct. 1, deflates yet another major GMO myth – that labeling
is too costly – and comes at a point in time when accurate information about the
costs to consumers is being sought by voters for the upcoming Oregon and
Colorado votes on GMO labeling this November.

During
last year’s campaign
against I-522, Monsanto and its biotech allies including the Grocery Manufacturers
of America, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Pepsi, spent more than $11 million dollars
on political advertizing designed to buttress industry claims that labeling GMO
foods in Washington state would add hundreds of millions of dollars in
additional costs to farmers, grocers, and consumers.

The
principal and actually quite suspect source of these alarming biotech claims
was a methodologically dubious study conducted by the Washington
Research Council. The WRC is really an ALEC-like
(American Legislative Exchange Council) group with a board that features a
Who’s Who of Fortune 500 companies based in or with major operations in
Washington such as Alcoa Intalco Works, Amazon, Boeing, BP Cherry Point
Refinery, Chevron, Microsoft, Waste Management, Weyerhaeuser Company, and many
more.

These
corporations have apparently found their social conscience and, all of a
sudden, feigning corporate welfare concern for low-income households, are
declaring a selfless commitment to help poor consumers fight food costs and eat – what? – junk and processed foods.  The opponents of I-520 were not
the only one’s using faulty data from the oft-cited WRC study. It estimated that “…for the
2015–19 period, the increase in food costs that I-522 would impose for a
household of four would be between $200 and $520 per year.” 

The CU report also clarifies that the cost impact estimates in the WRC study included a blending of consumer food costs, regulation and
monitoring costs, the cost of lawsuits brought under the proposed law, and impacts
on research and development; the only quantitative data was from Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants (2013) and that source did not separately
report labeling costs.

Our perspective is that the WRC estimate was
literally pulled out of thin air; is a misreading of the Northbridge findings; and involves  methodology that is a poorly conceptualized and indeed inappropriate use of secondary
social science data filtered through faulty and biased assumptions. The WRC report that became a mantra truth claim was not even a direct empirical survey of actual
previous labeling costs, etc. and it failed to ground the estimating cost algorithms
on factual archival data sources as one might surmise would be required for a
study to produce legitimate or at least plausible results.

The
new CU study does not suffer from these methodological flaws of the previous analysis
by the WRC and should greatly dampen industry claims about the consumer costs
of labeling.

According
to Jean Halloran, the Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, the
new study – which includes a meta-analysis of previous research on the economic
costs of labeling – offers a more realistic estimate of less than a penny a day
for the average consumer.

This
cost, says Halloran, is “…a tiny fraction of the cost estimates put out by
industry and certainly a very small price to pay for consumers’ right to know...”
The study, in part, relies on historical patterns for the costs of required
labeling dating back to the 1990s. The results of the study supported the
decision by Consumers Union to endorse Oregon’s GMO labeling ballot initiative,
Measure 92:

Given the minimal cost to consumers, the
increased herbicide use involved in growing almost all genetically engineered
crops, as well as the failure of government to require human safety assessments
before genetically engineered foods reach the marketplace, GMO labeling is well
worth it. Companies change their labeling all the time and with GMO labeling
costing so little, it is likely some producers won’t even bother to pass the minimal
increase on to consumers.

Not
to be overlooked in any reasonable assessment of the Consumers Union report is
something that has been missing in the industry-funded studies – a rigorous review
of previous studies on the costs of labeling. This includes studies involving
other kinds of labeling requirements since the 1990s that have nothing to do
with GMO labeling and involve other public health objectives. This makes the
results of the CU study all the more valuable and instructive.

Given
the meta-analysis, it is my opinion that the industry-funded studies rely on
methods that purposefully overestimate the cost of labeling and happened with
the analysis of proposals in California, Washington and New York. Like the WRC
research, industry-funded research ignored the lessons from the methods and
materials used by previous studies.

The
CU study disputes claims made in political ads opposing Measure 92  that the industry is buying to repeat the
anti-I-522 mantra that labeling will force farmers and food producers to
spend  “millions” and increase food costs
for consumers. Halloran summarizes the CU critique of this unfounded assertion:

Industry cost estimates incorporate unrealistic
assumptions about how GMO labeling requirements will drive food producers to
switch to all organic ingredients, which would be much more expensive. However,
there is no factual basis for this assumption and we believe producers will
continue to sell GMO foods once they are labeled, and many consumers will
continue to buy them, with no discernible price impact. Measure 92 simply
requires foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled so
that consumers can make an informed choice.

Further
buttressing the findings of the report, Consumers Union notes that labeling of
GMO foods is already required in 64 countries, including many where US agri-food
system corporations sell their products. Labeling has not increased food prices in those countries. Explaining the significance
of this fact, Halloran notes in the CU press release that:

Producers are required to label foods that are
frozen, from concentrate, homogenized, or irradiated, as well as a food’s country
of origin. Poll after poll has found that more than 90 percent of consumers
want foods that are genetically engineered to be labeled.

The
CU study could prove pivotal to the outcome of the Colorado and Oregon
initiatives on GMO labeling. Vermont has already passed legislation requiring
GMO labeling, and legislatures in dozens of other states are considering
similar labeling bills.

For
more information on the Consumer Union study of the costs of GMO labeling…

Contact:

Naomi
Starkman, nstarkman.consultant@consumer.org

917.539.3924
| cell

Tim
Marvin, tmarvin@consumer.org

415.572.0040
| cell