OK Hankster, I read the Washington State Academy of Sciences's White Paper and here's my book report on it for you...
Looks to me that it predicts anywhere from a marginal to 10% increase in the cost of food. Marginal is obviously OK, but 10% obviously isn't. The article states "The costs of actual labeling are a tiny fraction of the costs of compliance and certification." These costs come from not just labeling, but increased costs of sorting GMO from non GMO, certification testing as well as managing GM and non-GM crops for cross-pollination.
One point in the white paper that was not brought up yet ITT was the cost to the taxpayer through the state, not just the costs to consumers. Estimates for the cost to the taxpayer for the State hiring people to ensure compliance and enforcing this law range from $0.2 million per year to $22.5 million per year. $0.2 million is probably not worth complaining about but $22.5 million is.
I also found a very compelling argument regarding the voluntarily labeling, whole foods line of reasoning:
Currently consumers can choose between conventional unlabeled goods, organic foods, and voluntarily labeled GMO-free goods. By paying more, individuals desiring the “right to know” currently have the option to know when they are buying GMO-free goods, which are labeled voluntarily by firms targeting such individuals. Volunteer labeling concentrates the costs on the target group able and willing to pay more for GMO-free products. Caswell points out that mandatory labeling imposes costs on everyone and not just those that desire GMO-free goods.
Balancing the “right to know” with the “right to choose” is an important economic tradeoff. Invoking GMO labeling through I-522 would provide additional information to consumers. However, I-522 could create barriers to production and marketing of GM products which could reduce the available number of goods to choose among (i.e., reduce the choices) and thereby restrict a consumer’s “right to choose”. In circumstances when the “right to know” conflicts with the “right to choose,” laws and regulations must be carefully thought out, formed, and implemented.
So there are not just 2 types of goods on the marketplace, GMO and non-GMO there are actually 4:
1. conventional unlabeled food
2. organic foods (which are by definition GMO-free)
3. voluntarily labeled GMO-free food.
4. voluntarily labeled GM food.
This law takes the first type off the market, restricting people's freedom of choice. These also happen to be the lowest cost choice in the market. So in a while this law is championed in the name of giving consumers greater choice through better information, it ironically restricts their choices rather than enhances it. Especially if you don't care about GMOs and are going to make your decision on price regardless, removing the lower cost item sans information takes away your preferred choice.
If most people don't care about GMOs enough to shop at Whole Foods or seek out the voluntarily GMO labeling program, then they probably don't care enough to pay higher taxes to subsidize the food costs for other people who do care. Shouldn't people who care about differentiating between GMO and non-GMO food be the ones to bear the full cost of differentiating between the two?
Previous Topic
Index
