(Genetically) Modifying the Law
BY TREVOR LEUZINGER
For people who think that the government makes too many concessions to help out large corporations, the most recent evidence in their favor is the “Monsanto Protection Act.” This March President Obama signed into law H.R. 933: the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act – an annual agricultural spending bill that included the divisive Section 735, or as it has come to be known, the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Diverse groups ranging from the Tea Party to environmentalists started protesting soon after about the language of the section, how the section was added to the bill, and an alleged lack of oversight by Congress.
The legislation moved through Congress quickly because it included budgetary provisions for the rest of the 2013 fiscal year and so was deemed necessary to avoid a government shutdown. If you wonder if Congress reads everything that passes their desks, the response to this legislation should give you an answer. After the bill passed, many members said they did not even realize legislation concerning genetically modified organisms was part of the act, buried 78 pages deep. Even if members of Congress did know about it, the looming need to prevent a government shutdown kept anyone from debating it.
As the backlash against the bill began, Chairwoman Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was singled out for allowing the rider to make its way through the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, her recent ascension to chairwoman quickly made clear who was actually responsible for the bill. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) admitted to meeting with Monsanto before writing the legislation. Monsanto also gave Senator Blunt’s campaign $64,250 for the 2012 election. It is worrisome that Monsanto seems to be writing laws for its own benefit.
So what does the “Monsanto Protection Act” actually do? Essentially, it allows farmers and industry to plant and sell genetically modified crops even if U.S. courts try to stop them. The act was a stopgap measure needed for the government to continue functioning, so this portion of the bill only remains in effect for six months. Agricultural testing and the courts move at such a slow pace that this “protection” will most likely not even come into play. The passionate blog posts abounding about the danger of this law generally show a lack of knowledge of how long research takes for these products. The six months this provision will be in effect is not actually enough time for anything to happen. The timelines at play with genetically modified organisms (which are almost all crops) are years if not decades. If the provision is extended it may have some effect, but Senator Mikulski has said she would not let a similar rider through in future bills.
Instead of focusing on this bill, concerned consumers should turn to elsewhere in Washington, where the FDA is likely to approve a genetically engineered salmon soon. While the fishing industry hasn’t been quite as directly involved as Monsanto was with H.R. 933, this has not stopped people from protesting against this move. If the FDA does approve the salmon, there would not be regulation and it would not require a label indicating it is genetically engineered. Consumer groups are worried about the safety of the product, while proponents point out that fish has been in development for 17 years.
So what are people to do if they feel the government is not protecting them in this matter? Consumers and their interest groups are taking a number of actions on behalf of those concerned about the health risks associated with genetically modified organisms. A coalition of groups have gotten over 2,000 stores, including Trader Joe’s, to sign a pledge against knowingly carrying genetically-engineered seafood.
At the same time, some twenty states are debating requirements on the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms – something not currently required anywhere in the country. Proposition 37 in California would have required labeling in the state but was defeated by vote last year, thanks in part to $40 million spent by major corporations. However, some corporations now support labeling, including giants like PepsiCo and Wal-Mart. The possibility of a genetically engineered fish entering the market has accelerated the debate and willingness on the part of corporations to enter this issue.
For over a decade genetically engineered crops have been present in processed foods in the United States. As other modified organisms like salmon begin to approach the market, consumers have become increasingly concerned. Indeed, we are only starting to see the beginning of action against genetically engineered organisms. In these cases, citizens hold the power to do much more.