{"id":2432,"date":"2016-02-21T23:39:16","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T04:39:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/?p=2432"},"modified":"2018-08-28T22:33:22","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T02:33:22","slug":"labeling-gm-foods-democracy-and-autonomy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/2016\/02\/21\/labeling-gm-foods-democracy-and-autonomy\/","title":{"rendered":"Labeling GM Foods: Democracy and Autonomy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Labeling GM Foods: Democracy and Autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Alex G. Leone, JD ’16\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I. Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

A bipartisan majority of Americans asserts a right to know what it is eating and wants mandatory labeling of genetically modified (\u201cGM\u201d) foods:[1]<\/a> a simple, on-label statement of whether a food or food ingredient is the product of genetic engineering.[2]<\/a> A miniscule minority opposes such labeling,[3]<\/a> and sixty-four countries, including the majority of the developed world, already require it.[4]<\/a> Yet proposed legislation pending in the Senate would preempt state and local efforts to require labeling of GM foods and would not create a federal labeling requirement.[5]<\/a> Given that our democracy \u201crests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights,\u201d[6]<\/a> this proposed legislation is puzzling.[7]<\/a> What could explain it?<\/p>\n

II. A Popular Argument and a Simple Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

The most popular and most purportedly powerful argument against labeling GM foods[8]<\/a> takes the following form:<\/p>\n

Premise One:<\/strong> GM foods are generally safe to eat.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Premise Two:<\/strong> Labeling of GM foods would lead consumers to believe that genetically modified foods are not generally safe to eat.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion: <\/strong>Therefore, GM foods should not be labeled.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Sympathetic to this argument, renowned Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein writes that \u201c[a]ny such [labeling] requirement would inevitably lead many consumers to suspect that public officials, including scientists, believe that something is wrong with GM foods.\u201d[12]<\/a> The Washington Post Editorial Board echoes Professor Sunstein when it writes that labeling requirements \u201cimply[] a strong government safety concern where one does not exist.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

However, there is a simple structural solution to that possible problem: a voluntary or mandatory disclaimer to the effect that F.D.A. does not believe there is a significant difference between the food safety risks of GM and non-GM foods.[14]<\/a> If labels on GM foods appeared with that disclaimer, the labels, of course, would not \u201cinevitably lead\u201d consumers to conclude that \u201cpublic officials\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. believe something is wrong with GM foods.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

Analogous disclaimers are already required in several food-purchasing contexts; and the GM food labeling scenario would not be relevantly different. For example, F.D.A. requires disclaimers for descriptive claims on dietary supplements, clarifying that the supplements are \u201cnot intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.\u201d[16]<\/a> Labeling GM foods, furthermore, presents a particularly tight analogue to labeling milk \u201crBST-free.\u201d[17]<\/a> F.D.A. requires such a label to include a disclaimer to the effect that \u201cno significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-treated cows.\u201d[18]<\/a> Just as a \u201cno significant difference\u201d disclaimer is sufficient to assuage concerns that an \u201crBST-free\u201d label could mislead consumers, it would be sufficient to assuage concerns that labeling GM foods could mislead consumers.<\/p>\n

Moreover, it is not necessary that every food labeling requirement reflect the safety of the labeled food products;[19]<\/a> this fact is so obvious that it often goes unnoticed.[20]<\/a> F.D.A. requires that orange juice from concentrate, for example, be labeled as such.[21]<\/a> Yet clearly the \u201cfrom concentrate\u201d label does not mean, and is not meant to imply, that orange juice from concentrate is unsafe to drink\u2014even in the absence of a disclaimer.[22]<\/a> F.D.A. also requires that food manufacturers that apply ionizing radiation to their foods label those foods as \u201ctreated with [or by] irradiation\u201d[23]<\/a>\u2014even though F.D.A. believes that \u201cirradiation can make food safer <\/em>for the consumer\u201d and that it does not compromise nutritional quality.[24]<\/a> Another example of this principle, of which there is no shortage,[25]<\/a> is the federal regulatory requirement that imported foods be labeled with their countries of origin:[26]<\/a> Although olive oil from Italy needs to be labeled as such,[27]<\/a> the label does not, and is not meant to, make a claim about the safety\u2014or even the nutritional or organoleptic qualities\u2014of the oil.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, after F.D.A. recently approved for human consumption genetically engineered salmon,[29]<\/a> Congress has required F.D.A. to \u201cimplement a program to disclose to consumers whether a salmon offered for sale to consumers is a genetically engineered variety.\u201d[30]<\/a> Indeed, Congress has imposed this requirement despite F.D.A.\u2019s determination that genetically engineered salmon is \u201cas safe to eat as any non-genetically engineered\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. salmon, and also as nutritious.\u201d[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

III. Autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n

But the argument deployed by Professor Sunstein and the Washington Post Editorial Board fails for a more fundamental reason: Paternalistically,[32]<\/a> it contends that uncontroversially factual information should be withheld from American adults, even though a majority of those adults express a clear preference for the disclosure of the information.[33]<\/a> It is for this reason that one of the world\u2019s leading bioethicists has stated: \u201c[T]he opponents of labeling need to end their opposition to letting people know what they want to know about their food.\u201d[34]<\/a> And in the words of the New York Times Editorial Board, \u201cConsumers deserve to know what they are eating.\u201d[35]<\/a><\/p>\n

The disclosure of such information is essential if autonomous adults are to make informed choices about their own lives\u2014generally, a morally valuable circumstance.[36]<\/a> \u201c[C]ontemporary moral and political philosophy [thus] work from a strong presumption against paternalis[m],\u201d[37]<\/a> and with good reason. Paternalism \u201cbypasses the agent\u2019s capacity to be self-directing and ignores the agent\u2019s wishes regarding the way she would like to live her own life;\u201d[38]<\/a> and paternalism \u201crestrict[s] individuals\u2019 liberties and treat[s] them as less than fully capable of making decisions that are in their own best interest.\u201d[39]<\/a> Thus, paternalism is \u201cgenerally considered impermissible, barring very exceptional circumstances.\u201d[40]<\/a> Some experts consider such \u201cvery exceptional circumstances\u201d to include withholding of information by a medical provider that would lead to the harm or suffering of her patient,[41]<\/a> or withholding of information from the populace in public health emergencies[42]<\/a>\u2014i.e., only \u201cwhen the possible related consequences are severe enough.\u201d[43]<\/a> Yet withholding information from autonomous adults in even some of those circumstances is contentious.[44]<\/a><\/p>\n

Indeed, the argument that autonomous adults cannot be provided factual information about their food, simply because opponents of labeling claim they \u201clack [] education\u201d or are too ignorant to understand it, treats adults as less than fully capable of making decisions that are in their own best interest.[45]<\/a> And if we suppose that consumers can read a \u201cno significant difference\u201d disclaimer, the argument no longer passes even the straight-face test\u2014it is, as leading bioethicist Arthur Caplan suggests, \u201cpathetic.\u201d[46]<\/a><\/p>\n

IV. Beyond General Food Safety Per Se<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even if genetic modification does not itself make the modified plants or animals less safe to eat, there are many reasons why consumers could rationally desire to be aware of whether they are consuming GM foods.[47]<\/a> Consider, for example, the ecological and biological implications of glyphosate, the most frequently used herbicide in the United States and the main ingredient in Monsanto\u2019s \u201cRoundup,\u201d a chemical compound that genetically modified (or \u201cRoundup Ready\u201d) corn and soy are engineered to resist.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n

On one hand, glyphosate has been declared a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer;[49]<\/a> has been linked to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including e. coli and salmonella,[50]<\/a> and to the destruction of beneficial gut bacteria;[51]<\/a> and has been associated with a variety of other health problems in both human beings and animals, such as reproductive impairment and neurobehavioral complications.[52]<\/a> On the other hand, Roundup Ready crops currently comprise the vast majority of the corn and soy planted in the United States;[53]<\/a> and GM agriculture, consequently, has caused increases in glyphosate use[54]<\/a>\u2014from 1992 to 2013, glyphosate usage increased from under twenty-five million pounds to over two-hundred and fifty million pounds[55]<\/a>\u2014and glyphosate residue on GM foods.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n

But the presence of glyphosate is not limited to our food; it\u2019s also in our water and air.[57]<\/a> A recent United States Geological Survey study, for example, found glyphosate in the majority of \u201crivers, streams, ditches, and wastewater treatment plant outfalls tested\u201d in thirty-eight different states and in seventy percent of rainfall samples.[58]<\/a> These alarming facts have led researchers to call for further study and government regulation of glyphosate.[59]<\/a> Unsurprisingly, several countries have banned, or initiated efforts to ban, the dubious chemical;[60]<\/a> and the United States Environmental Protection Agency expects to release a report on its health risks.[61]<\/a><\/p>\n

Glyphosate and other pesticides used in the cultivation of GM crops, moreover, are linked to the proliferation of superweeds,[62]<\/a> plants that have evolved to resist herbicides, and superbugs,[63]<\/a> insects that have similarly evolved\u2014as well as to the demise of insects essential to pollination, such a bees and butterflies.[64]<\/a> The health of pollinator insects is an issue of national concern:[65]<\/a> President Obama has issued a memorandum \u201ccreating a federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators.\u201d[66]<\/a> And the United States Environmental Protection Agency will soon study the effects of pesticides\u2014including glyphosate in particular\u2014on endangered species.[67]<\/a> The threats that GM agriculture may pose to ecology and biodiversity, therefore, merit consumer attention.<\/p>\n

Labeling GM foods \u201cis [also] essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies.\u201d[68]<\/a> Allergies and other similar concerns have led the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health to warn of \u201cpotentially large, and often not well understood, risks from GM technologies\u201d[69]<\/a> and the State of Vermont to recognize in its legislation \u201cpotential \u2018unintended\u2019 consequences from G[M] food production to non-G[M] crops and the environment.\u201d[70]<\/a> The threat of contamination of non-GM crop fields by the genetic material of GM crops is another clear example of such unintended consequences.[71]<\/a> Accordingly, these facts, especially if considered together, uncontroversially lead to the conclusion that a reasonable consumer could\u2014or perhaps should<\/em>\u2014wish to know whether his or her food is the product of genetically modified agriculture.<\/p>\n

But the list of reasons why Americans may wish to know whether their food has been genetically modified does not end with the concerns described above. For example, food has spiritual dimensions as well. The Vermont General Assembly, in an act requiring the labeling of GM foods, declared labeling essential if individuals are to \u201cconform to religious beliefs and comply with dietary restrictions.\u201d[72]<\/a> (Notably, the genetically engineered salmon recently approved for consumption by F.D.A. grows more than twice as fast as natural salmon due to hormone-regulating genes spliced into its genome, including one from the ocean pout\u2014an eel-like, bottom-dwelling fish that is not kosher.[73]<\/a>) Pope Francis, furthermore, has recognized some of the \u201csignificant difficulties\u201d presented by GM agriculture.[74]<\/a> Such difficulties include questions of economic justice, like those arising from GM agriculture\u2019s tendency to cause \u201cproductive land [to] concentrate[] in the hands of a few owners\u201d and to engender poverty in regions where GM agriculture leaves laborers with fewer occupational options.[75]<\/a> Some authors have insightfully argued that the risks of GM crop monoculture are analogous to those that caused the financial crisis\u2014and its resulting preponderance of economic injustice\u2014in the late 2000\u2019s.[76]<\/a> And, finally, consumers may object to, and wish not to support, what they perceive to be downright deceptive behavior by GM food manufacturers or their lobbyists.[77]<\/a><\/p>\n

V. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The cost of labeling GM foods would likely be de minimis.[78]<\/a> Several States,[79]<\/a> millions and millions of Americans,[80]<\/a> over 700 chefs and restaurant owners,[81]<\/a> and over 400 companies[82]<\/a>\u2014even Campbell Soup Company, which previously opposed labeling[83]<\/a>\u2014want to join the majority of the developed world:[84]<\/a> They want simple, on-package labeling of GM foods.[85]<\/a> The fundamental principles of adult autonomy and democratic rule militate strongly against some legislators\u2019 moves to contravene the will of most Americans. The Senate, therefore, should reject any proposed piece of legislation that would preempt states\u2019 rights to label GM foods and that would not impose a federal labeling requirement. Senators, after all, should not \u201csubstitute their will to that of their constituents.\u201d[86]<\/a> And on the contrary, the Senate should strongly consider mandatory labeling of GM foods. But in the event that the Senate does not reject the proposed legislation, I would implore President Obama to keep his 2007 campaign promise: \u201cHere\u2019s what I\u2019ll do as president[:]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. We\u2019ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they\u2019re buying.\u201d[87]<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n


\n[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> \u201cGenetically modified\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g.<\/em> through the introduction of a gene from a different organism.\u201d Food, Genetically modified<\/em>, World Health Org., http:\/\/www.who.int\/topics\/food_genetically_modified\/en\/ [perma.cc\/5JY7-QS57]. \u201c[U]nlike traditional selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of traits that can be moved into [food crops and animals] and enables breeders to import DNA from virtually anywhere in the biosphere.\u201d Phillip J. Landrigan & Charles Benbrook, GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health<\/em>, 373 New Eng. J. Med. 693, 694 (2015), http:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJMp1505660 [perma.cc\/G9CM-EUR7]; see also<\/em> Mark Spitznagel & Nassim N. Taleb, Another \u2018Too Big to Fail\u2019 System in G.M.O.s<\/em>, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2015), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/07\/14\/business\/dealbook\/another-too-big-to-fail-system-in-gmos.html?ref=topics [perma.cc\/ZM8K-GCAJ] (\u201c[W]e are told that a modified tomato is not different from a naturally occurring tomato. That is wrong: The statistical mechanism by which a tomato was built by nature is bottom-up, by tinkering in small steps\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. In nature, errors stay confined and, critically, isolated.\u201d).<\/p>\n

The F.D.A. recently clarified that \u201c[m]ost foods do not contain entire organisms.\u201d Stephanie Strom, F.D.A. Takes Issue With the Term \u2018Non-G.M.O.\u2019<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 2015), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/11\/21\/business\/fda-takes-issue-with-the-term-non-gmo.html?ref=topics [perma.cc\/6QTV-F8KZ]. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to label so-called \u201cgenetically modified foods\u201d as foods \u201ccontaining ingredients that have been genetically engineered\u201d or, for example, foods \u201ccontaining oil derived from genetically engineered soybeans,\u201d as opposed to \u201cG.M.O.\u201d See id<\/em>. That clarification is helpful, but this Article proceeds for simplicity\u2019s sake by referring both to entire organisms that can be consumed as food\u2014such as genetically engineered salmon\u2014and to foods or food products containing ingredients derived from such organisms\u2014such as corn chips fried in oil derived from genetically engineered soybeans\u2014as \u201cGM foods.\u201d After all, F.D.A. itself sometimes subordinates linguistic accuracy to other goals. See, e.g.<\/em>, 21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0101.62(c)(1)(i) (noting that the term \u201c\u2018zero [trans] fat,\u2019\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. may be used on the label or in the labeling of food[],\u201d despite the fact that \u201c[t]he food contains [0.4]g trans fatty acid per reference amount customarily consumed [or] per labeled serving\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Chris Morran, Poll: 9-In-10 Americans Support GMO Labeling<\/em>, The Consumerist (Dec. 2, 2015), http:\/\/consumerist.com\/2015\/12\/02\/poll-9-in-10-americans-support-gmo-labeling\/ [perma.cc\/MQ36-TTWT]; Allison Kopicki, Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods<\/em>, N.Y. Times (July 27, 2013), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2013\/07\/28\/science\/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html [perma.cc\/M8FT-KT54]; Michelle Yee Hee Lee, Would GMO labeling requirement cost $500 more in groceries per family a year?<\/em>, Wash. Post (Apr. 6, 2015), http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/fact-checker\/wp\/2015\/04\/06\/would-gmo-labeling-requirement-cost-500-more-in-groceries-per-family-a-year\/ [perma.cc\/KP96-KQTC] (\u201cThose who want labeling say they want a nonjudgmental, back-of-package wording.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Mary Clare Jalonick, Poll finds most Americans want GMO food labels<\/em>, PBS Newshour (Jan. 13, 2015, 3:18 PM), http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/rundown\/poll-finds-americans-support-gmo-food-labeling\/ [perma.cc\/PXH2-L5LY].<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See<\/em> Landrigan & Benbrook, supra<\/em> note 1, at 693 (\u201c[U]nlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods\u201d). For a list of countries that require labeling, see International Labeling Laws<\/em>, Ctr. for Food Safety, http:\/\/www.centerforfoodsafety.org\/issues\/976\/ge-food-labeling\/international-labeling-laws [perma.cc\/V7YH-9SHV].<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, H.R. 1599, 114th Cong. (2015), https:\/\/www.govtrack.us\/congress\/bills\/114\/hr1599 [perma.cc\/V2NB-YQEZ]; Carey Gillam, Senate committee set to examine GMO labeling law<\/em>, Reuters (Oct. 21, 2015, 7:15\u00a0AM), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2015\/10\/21\/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSKCN0SF19620151021 [perma.cc\/T6AC-FNM5]. Senator Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, is reputed to be currently drafting a functionally equivalent piece of proposed legislation that will be unveiled shortly. See<\/em> Jenny Hopkinson, Morning Agriculture<\/em>, Politico (Feb. 16, 2016, 10:00 AM), http:\/\/www.politico.com\/tipsheets\/morning-agriculture\/2016\/02\/scotus-to-consider-taking-up-chesapeake-bay-challenge-how-scotus-vacancy-could-affect-wotus-where-art-thou-roberts-gmo-labeling-bill-212713 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/Z3LM-RV8A].<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Bureau Int\u2019l Info. Programs, U.S. Dep\u2019t State, Democracy in Brief 4, http:\/\/photos.state.gov\/libraries\/amgov\/30145\/publications-english\/democracy-in-brief.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/QU7R-XZDL]. Generally, producers and advertisers of GM foods have rights under the First Amendment. But the \u201cconstitutionally protected interest in not providing\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. factual information [on a label] is \u2018minimal.\u2019\u201d See<\/em> Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 249\u201350 (2010) (quoting Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985)); Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass\u2019n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294, 316 (1st Cir. 2005) (\u201cThe idea that\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. thousands of routine regulations require an extensive First Amendment analysis is mistaken.\u201d). It is partially for that reason that a District Court for the District of Vermont recently refused to strike down a Vermont statute that requires labeling of genetically modified foods. See<\/em> generally<\/em> Grocery Mfrs. Ass\u2019n v. Sorrell, 102 F.\u00a0Supp.\u00a03d 583 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2015), appeal docketed<\/em>, No 15-1504 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2015) (argued Oct. 8, 2015). The court reviewed the Grocery Manufacturers Association\u2019s First Amendment challenge to the statute\u2019s GM food labeling requirement under the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, id.<\/em> at 632\u201336, a ruling which is currently on appeal.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> The proposed legislation is even more puzzling in light of the fact that a majority of those polled in Kansas\u2014the state from which Representative Pompeo, who introduced the \u201cSafe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,\u201d and Senator Roberts hail\u2014reports being \u201cconfused and disappointed\u201d by a federal effort to preempt their right to label GM foods. See Monday Poll results: Many show support for GMO labeling<\/em>, Kan. City Star (July 28, 2015), http:\/\/www.kansascity.com\/opinion\/editorials\/article29208574.html [https:\/\/perma.cc\/F9SW-8YB6].<\/p>\n

Most Americans may be thankful, on the other hand, that a contrary piece of federal legislation that would \u201cprovid[e] consumers with knowledge of how their food is produced\u201d was at least proposed. See<\/em> Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, S. 51, 114th Cong. (2015), https:\/\/www.govtrack.us\/congress\/bills\/114\/s511 [perma.cc\/UWT5-22G7]. Further, after F.D.A. recently approved for human consumption genetically engineered salmon, a disappointed Congress passed a spending bill that requires F.D.A. to \u201cimplement a program to disclose to consumers whether a salmon offered for sale to consumers is a genetically engineered variety.\u201d Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, \u00a7 761 (2015), https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/114th-congress\/house-bill\/2029\/text.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> A fallacious but nonetheless popular argument often deployed against labeling GM foods depends on the assumption that labeling GM foods in the United States would prevent or defund research on different GM foods that could benefit the developing world. The Washington Post Editorial Board, for example, writes that \u201cGM crops\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. can play an important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world\u2014if researchers in developed countries are allowed to continue advancing the field.\u201d Editorial, We don\u2019t need labels on genetically modified foods<\/em>, Wash. Post (Mar. 29, 2015), http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/we-dont-need-labels-telling-us-our-food-has-been-genetically-modified\/2015\/03\/29\/66f97f4a-d4c5-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html [perma.cc\/6SHC-68YZ]. And the Scientific American Editorial Board writes that the decision whether to label GM food in the United States is, \u201c[u]ltimately,\u201d a decision about \u201cwhether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology.\u201d Editorial, Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea<\/em>, Sci. Am. (Aug. 20, 2013), http:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea\/?page=1 [perma.cc\/5638-2PYQ]; see also<\/em> Tony Dokoupil, Sorry, Gwyneth Paltrow, GMO labels won\u2019t tell you what you want to know<\/em>, MSNBC (Aug. 5, 2015, 5:56\u00a0PM), http:\/\/www.msnbc.com\/msnbc\/more-celebrity-pseudoscience-gmos [perma.cc\/UPL3-DEGA] (stating without explanation that by advocating against the preemption of states\u2019 rights to label GM foods, \u201cGwyneth Paltrow is\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. standing in the way of crop innovations that could fight world hunger and combat nutrient deficiencies\u201d). The assumption is especially unreasonable in light of the fact that the GM foods that would be most useful in the developing world\u2014\u201cGolden Rice\u201d or super-nutritive cassava, for example\u2014are not even on the market in the United States. See<\/em> Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 8.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, a charitable critic could interpret the argument to presume that research on those beneficial GM foods depends on unwitting subsidy by developed-world consumers, whose purchasing decisions indirectly fund the relevant research. After all, the Scientific American Editorial Board writes that \u201conly with public support and funding will [GM foods that are beneficial in the developing world] make their way to people\u2019s plates.\u201d Id.<\/em> But, first, the source of \u201csupport\u201d and \u201cfunding\u201d the argument advocates\u2014unwitting subsidy by American consumers\u2014seems unethical, for it depends on misleading those consumers into purchasing GM foods. Cf.<\/em> Fraud<\/em>, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining fraud as \u201cconcealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment\u201d and consumer fraud as \u201c[a]ny intentional\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. deceptive act or practice\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. made by a seller or advertiser of goods or services to induce a person or people in general to buy\u201d). Second, from an economic perspective, such research should not depend on unwitting consumer subsidy; the market should not run on deception. See, e.g<\/em>., Peter A. Ubel, Free Market Madness: Why Human Nature is at Odds with Economics\u2014and Why it Matters 216 (2008) (noting that food labeling requirements \u201chave made the food market more like a true free market, because they have armed consumers with information that they can use to make [free] purchasing choices\u201d). And, third, the fact that most American consumers would object to funding research on GM foods by unwitting subsidy strongly suggests that the argument has no purchase in the democratic context of this political discussion. Cf.<\/em> John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 175 (David Bromwich & George Kateb eds., Yale University Press 2003) (1869) (\u201cA state which dwarfs its men\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. even for beneficial purposes\u2014will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, European Comm\u2019n, A decade of EU-funded GMO research 133 (2010), http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/research\/biosociety\/pdf\/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf [perma.cc\/Y3P5-WWGD]; Cary Funk & Lee Raine, Public and Scientists\u2019 Views on Science and Society<\/em>, Pew Res. Ctr. (Jan. 29, 2015), http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2015\/01\/29\/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society\/ [perma.cc\/8R3A-9LHK]. But see<\/em> Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety<\/em>, European Network Scientists for Soc. & Envtl. Resp. (Oct. 21, 2013), http:\/\/www.ensser.org\/increasing-public-information\/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety\/ [perma.cc\/E3E6-BYAQ]; Richard Dahl, To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods<\/em>, Envtl. Health Persps., http:\/\/ehp.niehs.nih.gov\/120-a358\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/G9YD-BCHS] (describing studies that may call the safety of GM foods into question and noting the lack of premarket safety testing of GM foods in the United States).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> See<\/em> We don\u2019t need labels on genetically modified foods<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 8; Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 8; Sunstein, infra<\/em> note 11. Recent research has casted doubt on this empirical proposition. See<\/em> Jon C. Reidel, New Study: Consumers Don\u2019t View GMO Labels as Negative \u2018Warnings\u2019<\/em>, U. Vt. (July 27, 2015), http:\/\/www.uvm.edu\/~uvmpr\/?Page=news&storyID=21203&category=uvmhome [https:\/\/perma.cc\/746D-9L9V].<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> See<\/em> Cass R. Sunstein, Don\u2019t Mandate Labeling for Gene-Altered Foods<\/em>, Bloomberg Bus. (May 12, 2013, 6:00\u00a0PM), http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2013-05-12\/don-t-mandate-labeling-for-gene-altered-foods [perma.cc\/EA88-U7BL]; We don\u2019t need labels on genetically modified foods<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 8 (\u201c[M]andatory labeling would be extremely misleading to consumers.\u201d); Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 8.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Sunstein, supra <\/em>note 11.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> We don\u2019t need labels on genetically modified foods<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 8.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Such a disclaimer would reflect the F.D.A.\u2019s general position on the issue. See<\/em> U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Derived from Genetically Engineered Plants: Guidance for Industry (2015), http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/Food\/GuidanceRegulation\/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation\/LabelingNutrition\/ucm059098.htm [perma.cc\/P246-TS8T] (affirming that F.D.A. is \u201cnot aware of any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way\u201d).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> See<\/em> Sunstein, supra <\/em>note 11; We don\u2019t need labels on genetically modified foods<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 8 (\u201c[M]andatory labeling would be extremely misleading to consumers.\u201d); Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 8.<\/p>\n

It is probable that at least some people believe that the Government lies to them and that the Government would require the dissemination of information it knows to be false. Perhaps those people would not be convinced by a disclaimer. See generally<\/em> Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures<\/em>, 17 J. Pol. Phil. 202 (2009).<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> See<\/em> 21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0101.93(c).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> See<\/em> Int\u2019l Dairy Foods Ass\u2019n v. Boggs, 622 F.3d 628, 639 (6th Cir. 2010) (\u201cWe agree with the Processors that the potential consumer confusion created by the composition claim \u2018rbST free\u2019 could be alleviated by accompanying the claim with a disclaimer informing consumers that rbST has yet to be detected in conventional milk.\u201d). \u201crBST\u201d is an acronym for \u201crecombinant bovine somatotropin,\u201d an artificial growth hormone administered to dairy cows to force them to produce more milk.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> See<\/em> Interim Guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Milk and Milk Products From Cows That Have Not Been Treated With Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, 59 Fed. Reg. 6279, 6280 (Feb. 10, 1994); Dale E. Bauman, Facts about Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin\u00a05, http:\/\/ansci.cals.cornell.edu\/sites\/ansci.cals.cornell.edu\/files\/shared\/documents\/Recombinant%20Bovine%20Somatotropin_v3.pdf [perma.cc\/6QNC-35AG]. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has concluded, on the contrary, that \u201ca compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk,\u201d which is produced with rBST. International Dairy Foods<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 17, at 636. For further research, see generally Laurie J. Beyranevand, Milking It: Reconsidering the FDA\u2019s Refusal to Require Labeling of Dairy Products Produced from rBST Treated Cows in Light of <\/em>International Dairy Foods Association v. Boggs (Vt. L. Sch., Sept. 9, 2011), http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925151&download=yes [perma.cc\/BS3X-QATC]; Christina Cusimano, Rbst, It Does A Body Good?: Rbst Labeling and the Federal Denial of Consumers\u2019 Right to Know<\/em>, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1095 (2008).<\/p>\n

Interestingly, Monsanto opposed voluntary labeling of milk as \u201crBST-free,\u201d calling it \u201cmisleading,\u201d see<\/em> Monsanto urges FDA to stop \u201cmisleading\u201d rBST-free labeling<\/em>, Organic & Non-GMO Report (May 2007), http:\/\/www.non-gmoreport.com\/articles\/may07\/misleading_rBST-free_labeling.php [perma.cc\/EW2G-YXPJ], as it opposes mandatory labeling GM foods on the same basis, see<\/em> Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed<\/em>, Monsanto (March 2013), http:\/\/www.monsanto.com\/newsviews\/pages\/food-labeling.aspx [https:\/\/perma.cc\/F7UP-NP6W].<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> The Food and Drug Administration arguably lacks authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a0301 et seq<\/em>., to require labels on all GM foods. See<\/em> U.S. Food & Drug Admin., supra<\/em> note 14. But see<\/em> Emily M. Lanza, Cong. Research Serv., R43705, Legal Issues with Federal Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food: In Brief 3 (2015), https:\/\/www.fas.org\/sgp\/crs\/misc\/R43705.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6TMV-NRGY] (\u201cIn the past, the FDA has required specific labeling on the basis of it being \u2018material\u2019 information if the absence of such information would\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. pose special health or environmental risks.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)); Food Labeling; Declaration of Ingredients<\/em>, 56 Fed. Reg. 28592, 28599 (1991) (finding that the source of a protein\u2014i.e.<\/em>, whether it is from milk\u2014can be \u201cinformation of material importance for a person who desires to avoid certain foods for religious or cultural reasons\u201d and should for that reason appear on food labels). But even if it is the case that F.D.A. lacks such authority, it is Congress<\/em> that should heed its constituents, irrespective of the contours of F.D.A.\u2019s current power. See generally<\/em> supra<\/em> text accompanying notes 2 & 3; infra<\/em> text accompanying note 86.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> See<\/em> Arthur Caplan, GMO Foods Should be Labeled, But Not for Safety: Bioethicist<\/em>, NBC News (Sept. 8, 2013, 4:06\u00a0PM), http:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/health\/health-news\/why-gmo-foods-should-be-labeled-n423451 [perma.cc\/X9LA-Z7J2] (\u201cThink about the words that go onto food products now that have nothing to do with safety, or for that matter any proven facts about nutrition\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d). Contrast the questionable foundation of a common argument as to why GM foods should not be labeled: \u201c[T]his is not a food safety or a nutritional issue\u2014it\u2019s not like allergens or trans fats\u2014[so]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. it should[n\u2019t] be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.\u201d Elaine Watson, CSPI: There are legitimate concerns about GMOs, but not around food safety, and labeling would be misleading<\/em>, Food Navigator USA (July 3, 2013), http:\/\/web.uri.edu\/foodsafety\/files\/CSPI_-There-are-concerns-about-GMOs-but-not-around-food-safety.pdf [perma.cc\/3VH2-ZT2R].<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> See<\/em> 21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0146.145(c).<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> See<\/em> Pat Thomas, Behind the Label: orange juice<\/em>, Ecologist (July 13, 2009), http:\/\/www.theecologist.org\/green_green_living\/behind_the_label\/285643\/behind_the_label_orange_juice.html [perma.cc\/9GGA-3T2D]; Ali Weinberg, Why Gwyneth Paltrow Is Joining a Congressional Food Fight Over GMO Labeling<\/em>, ABC News (Aug. 5, 2015, 4:19\u00a0PMs), http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Politics\/gwyneth-paltrow-joining-congressional-food-fight-gmo-labeling\/story?id=32905001 [perma.cc\/EHE7-QNCJ] (quoting Gwyneth Paltrow as stating, \u201cMuch the way I want to know if my food is farm-raised, or wild, or if my orange juice is fresh or from concentrate[,] I also believe I have the right, and we as Americans all have the right to know what\u2019s in our food.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> See<\/em> 21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0179.26(c) (emphasis added). F.D.A. even requires that the Radura Symbol, a logo that indicates that the food has been irradiated, \u201cbe placed prominently and conspicuously in conjunction with the required statement.\u201d 21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0179.26(c)(1).<\/em><\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Food Irradiation: What You Need to Know<\/em>, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Sept. 3, 2015) (emphasis added), http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/Food\/ResourcesForYou\/Consumers\/ucm261680.htm [perma.cc\/N5W8-35YB].<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Consider, for example, the requirement that foods be labeled with their net weights. See <\/em>21 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0101.105.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> See<\/em> 19 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a0134.11; cf.<\/em> American Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep\u2019t Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (upholding a U.S.D.A. regulation that mandates disclosure of country-of-origin information about meat products).<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> To see an image of a country of origin label on a bottle of extra virgin olive oil purchased at Trader Joe\u2019s, visit Steveo, Trader Joe\u2019s Sicilian Extra Virgin Olive Oil \u2013 Food Review<\/em>, WordPress: Ain\u2019t Found a Good Title Blog (Aug. 13, 2011), https:\/\/aintfoundagoodtitleblog.wordpress.com\/2011\/08\/13\/trader-joes-sicilian-extra-virgin-olive-oil-food-review\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/G4Z9-34UY].<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> See<\/em> supra <\/em>text accompanying note 26.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> See <\/em>Andrew Pollack, Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption, N.Y. Times (Nov. 19, 2015), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/11\/20\/business\/genetically-engineered-salmon-approved-for-consumption.html [perma.cc\/4P3F-Y6VP].<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, \u00a7\u00a0761 (2015), https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/114th-congress\/house-bill\/2029\/text; see also<\/em> Alaska Stat. \u00a7\u00a017.20.040(14)(A)\u2013(B) (2005) (requiring genetically modified fish, if it is to be sold without being \u201cmisbranded,\u201d to be \u201cconspicuously labeled\u201d or \u201cconspicuously identified\u201d); Tamar Haspel, If the GMO salmon is as good as its maker says, why not label it?<\/em>, Wash. Post (Nov. 19, 2015), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/food\/fda-approves-gmo-salmon-a-first-for-the-us-food-supply\/2015\/11\/19\/d5d1b60e-8ec3-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html [perma.cc\/B3WB-D6FU].<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> FDA Has Determined That the AquAdvantage Salmon is as Safe to Eat as Non-GE Salmon<\/em>, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Nov. 19, 2015), http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/ForConsumers\/ConsumerUpdates\/ucm472487.htm [perma.cc\/MEA7-ZZEE].<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> See, e.g<\/em>., Hearing to Consider the Societal Benefits of Biotechnology Before the Subcomm. on Horticulture, Research, Biotech., and Foreign Agric. of the H. Comm. on Agric.<\/em>, 113th Cong. 43 (2014); Michael McAuliff, Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling, Congressional Panel Says<\/em>, Huffington Post (July 10, 2014), http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2014\/07\/10\/gmo-labels-congress_n_5576255.html [perma.cc\/X34V-NMNP] (streaming a video of testimony before a congressional panel in which congressmen and those testifying before them discuss the supposed \u201cignorance\u201d and \u201clack of education\u201d of American food consumers).<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> See<\/em> supra<\/em> text accompanying notes 2 & 3.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> See<\/em> Caplan, supra <\/em>note 20.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Editorial, Tell Consumers What They Are Eating<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Dec. 1, 2015), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/12\/01\/opinion\/tell-consumers-what-they-are-eating.html [perma.cc\/M2VC-G45G].<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> See generally<\/em> Immanuel Kant, Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals (1785); John Stuart Mill, supra <\/em>note 8.<\/p>\n

That disclosure is also essential to the vitality of the marketplace of ideas exalted by the First Amendment, see, e.g.<\/em>, Nat\u2019l Elec. Mfrs. Ass\u2019n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 114 (2d Cir. 2001), and to the libertarian ideal of a true free market, see, e.g<\/em>., Ubel, supra <\/em>note 8, at 216. \u201c[L]ibertarian philosophy is based in large part on the moral value of letting people make informed choices about their lives. And how can people make such choices if companies aren\u2019t willing to give them information about their products?\u201d Id.<\/em> F.D.A. food labeling requirements, after all, \u201chave made the food market more like a true free market, because they have armed consumers with information that they can use to make [free] purchasing choices.\u201d Id. <\/em>(footnote omitted). Therefore, \u201cthe value of that information\u201d\u2014whether food is the product of genetic engineering\u2014\u201cshould be left to consumers to decide.\u201d See Tell Consumers What They Are Eating<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 35.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> See<\/em> Kristin Voigt, Paternalism and Equality<\/em>, in<\/em> New Perspectives on Paternalism and Health Care 87, 87 (Thomas Schramme ed., 2015), http:\/\/link.springer.com\/chapter\/10.1007%2F978-3-319-17960-5_6#page-2 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/45N5-UVBY].<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Autonomy: Normative<\/em>, Internet Encyclopedia Phil., http:\/\/www.iep.utm.edu\/aut-norm\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/QQR5-2U2U]; see also<\/em> John Stuart Mill, supra <\/em>note 8, at 124 (\u201cHe who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> See <\/em>Voigt, supra <\/em>note 37, at 87.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> See<\/em> A.K. Edwin, Don\u2019t Lie but Don\u2019t Tell the Whole Truth: The Therapeutic Privilege\u2014Is it Ever Justified?<\/em>, 42 Ghana Med. J. 156, 156 (2008), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2673833\/ [perma.cc\/9GNR-JN64] (noting the \u201ctherapeutic privilege\u201d exception to the norm that medical information about a patient be disclosed to him).<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> See generally<\/em> P. O\u2019Malley et al., Transparency during public health emergencies: from rhetoric to reality<\/em>, 87 Bull. World Health Org. 614 (2009), http:\/\/www.who.int\/bulletin\/volumes\/87\/8\/08-056689\/en\/ [perma.cc\/LK3P-LQPE].<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Autonomy: Normative<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 38.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> See, e.g<\/em>., Mary S. McCabe et al., When the Family Requests Withholding the Diagnosis: Who Owns the Truth?<\/em>, 6 J. Oncology Practice 94, 95 (2010) (\u201cIt is the patient and not the physician or the family who ultimately owns the right to decide how he or she wants to exercise autonomy with respect to his or her own illness.\u201d), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2835490\/ [perma.cc\/X3XP-ZLYX]. See generally<\/em> Jukka Varelius, The value of autonomy in medical ethics<\/em>, 9 Med. Health Care. Phil. 377 (2006), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2780686\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/F2YF-JYJ2].<\/p>\n

As then-Judge Cardozo put it: \u201cEvery human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d Schloendorff v. Soc\u2019y of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129 (1914); see also<\/em> John Stuart Mill, supra<\/em> note 8, at 81 (\u201cOver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.\u201d)<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> See Hearing to Consider the Societal Benefits of Biotechnology<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 32; McAuliff, supra<\/em> note 32; cf<\/em>. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 770 (1976) (\u201cThere is, of course, an alternative to this highly paternalistic approach. That alternative is to assume that\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. information is not in itself harmful, that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> See<\/em> Caplan, supra <\/em>note 20 (\u201cSeeing the pro-GMO food industry fight labeling on the grounds that GMO food is safe is pathetic.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Cf.<\/em> Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 148 (1986) (identifying a state\u2019s \u201clegitimate interest in guarding against imperfectly understood environmental risks, despite the possibility that they may ultimately prove to be negligible\u201d).<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> See<\/em> Maggie Delano, Roundup Ready Crops<\/em>, Mass. Inst. Tech. (2009), http:\/\/web.mit.edu\/demoscience\/Monsanto\/about.html [https:\/\/perma.cc\/Y2GS-GFBN]; Nathanael Johnson, Roundup-ready, aim, spray: How GM crops lead to herbicide addiction<\/em>, Grist (Oct. 14, 2013) http:\/\/grist.org\/food\/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/5RC4-Y564]. See generally<\/em> John Peterson Myers et al., Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement<\/em>, 15 Envtl. Health 1 (2016), http:\/\/ehjournal.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12940-016-0117-0 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/39LF-CEJA].<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> See<\/em> Int\u2019l Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Org., IARC Monographs Vol. 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides 1 (Mar. 20, 2015), http:\/\/www.iarc.fr\/en\/media-centre\/iarcnews\/pdf\/MonographVolume112.pdf [http:\/\/perma.cc\/97Z6-JE39]; Kathryn Z. Guyton et al., Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate<\/em>, 16 Lancet Oncology 490, 490 (May 2015); Carey Gillam, U.S. lawsuits build against Monsanto over alleged Roundup cancer link<\/em>, Reuters (Oct. 15, 2015, 2:31\u00a0PM), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2015\/10\/15\/usa-monsanto-lawsuits-idUSL1N12E18J20151015 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6NT3-W8WW].<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> See <\/em>Brigitta Kurenbach et al., Sublethal Exposure to Commercial Formulations of the Herbicides Dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, and Glyphosate Cause Changes in Antibiotic Susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium<\/em>, mBio, Mar.\u2013Apr. 2015, at 1, http:\/\/mbio.asm.org\/content\/6\/2\/e00009-15 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/V72H-2VBQ].<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> See<\/em> Monika Kr\u00fcger et al., Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum<\/em>, 20 Anaerobe 74, 76 (2013).<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Myers et al., supra<\/em> note 48, at 3; Vincent F. Garry et al., Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA<\/em>, 110 Envtl. Health Persps. 441, 441 (2002), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1241196\/pdf\/ehp110s-000441.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/9T2L-PHG8]; Monika Kr\u00fcger et al., Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans<\/em>, J. Envtl. & Analytic Toxicology, 2014, at 1, http:\/\/www.omicsonline.org\/open-access\/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/PCD8-8YJN]; U.S. Envl. Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet on: Glyphosate 1, https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/assets\/media\/documents\/EPAglyphosate.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6398-WHL6]; cf.<\/em> Elizabeth Grossman, What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?<\/em>, Nat\u2019l Geographic (Apr. 23, 2015), http:\/\/news.nationalgeographic.com\/2015\/04\/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/B7CS-MVTC].<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> See Genetically engineered (GE) corn varieties by State and United States, 2000-2015<\/em>, Econ. Res. Serv, U.S. Dep\u2019t Agric., http:\/\/www.ers.usda.gov\/datafiles\/Adoption_of_Genetically_Engineered_Crops_in_the_US\/alltables.xls [https:\/\/perma.cc\/J799-EVLG] (last updated July 7, 2015).<\/p>\n

Some opponents of labeling contend that premising an argument for labels on the fact that problematic pesticides were used in the cultivation of the labeled foods \u201cconfuse[s] GM with a particular application for GM, namely herbicide tolerance.\u201d See Expert reaction to \u2018GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health\u2019<\/em>, Sci. Media Ctr. (Aug. 19, 2015), http:\/\/www.sciencemediacentre.org\/expert-reaction-to-gmos-herbicides-and-public-health\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/A94L-TPBC]. But that \u201cparticular application for GM\u201d tightly correlates with cultivation of GM corn and soy generally, for the vast majority of corn and soy is engineered to be herbicide tolerant. See<\/em> Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.,<\/em> Econ. Res. Serv, U.S. Dep\u2019t Agric., http:\/\/www.ers.usda.gov\/data-products\/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx [https:\/\/perma.cc\/CC5Z-T5TG] (last updated July 7, 2015). Moreover, the constitutional standard governing a federal labeling law would not require a perfect match between each end of a label\u2014for example, to alert consumers to glyphosate\u2019s probable hand, and its corresponding ecological significance, in a foods\u2019 production\u2014and the chosen means to that end\u2014a food label. See <\/em>Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S.\u00a0Ct. 1656, 1671 (2015) (quoting Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 209 (1992)) (reiterating that even strict scrutiny requires only that a law \u201cbe narrowly tailored, not that it be \u2018perfectly tailored\u2019\u201d); Grocery Mfrs. Ass\u2019n v. Sorrell, 102 F.\u00a0Supp.\u00a03d 583, 622 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2015), appeal docketed<\/em>, No 15-1504 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2015) (argued Oct. 8, 2015); cf.<\/em> Nat\u2019l Elec. Mfrs. Ass\u2019n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir. 2001) (\u201cInnumerable federal and state regulatory programs require the disclosure of product and other commercial information.\u201d); Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass\u2019n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294, 316 (1st Cir. 2005); Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Mfrs. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm\u2019n, 800 F.3d 518, 531 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Srinivasan, J., dissenting) (\u201cIssuers of securities must make all sorts of disclosures about their products for the benefit of the investing public. No one thinks that garden-variety disclosure obligations of that ilk raise a significant First Amendment problem.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> See<\/em> Food & Water Watch, Superweeds: How Biotech Crops Bolster the Pesticide Industry 4 (2013) http:\/\/www.foodandwaterwatch.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Superweeds%20Report%20July%202013.pdf [http:\/\/perma.cc\/TE64-W52W]; Beth Hoffman, GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less<\/em>, Forbes (July 2, 2013), http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/bethhoffman\/2013\/07\/02\/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less\/#2715e4857a0b50797ad5a371 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/3YRE-R8JV].<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> See <\/em>United States Geological Survey, Pesticide National Synthesis Project, Glyphosate, http:\/\/water.usgs.gov\/nawqa\/pnsp\/usage\/maps\/show_map.php?year=2012&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L [https:\/\/perma.cc\/L8BC-T5HW] (last updated Jan. 5, 2016); cf.<\/em> Charles M. Benbrook, Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. \u2014 the first sixteen years<\/em>, 24 Envtl. Sci. Europe 1 (2012), http:\/\/www.enveurope.com\/content\/24\/1\/24 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/93R2-4BKE]. But see<\/em> Tamar Haspel, It\u2019s the chemical Monsanto depends on. How dangerous is it?<\/em>, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 2015), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/lifestyle\/food\/its-the-chemical-monsanto-depends-on-how-dangerous-is-it\/2015\/10\/04\/2b8f58ee-67a0-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html [https:\/\/perma.cc\/975A-FACA] (noting that glyphosate has displaced use of other herbicides).<\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Myers et al., supra<\/em> note 48, at 3; Thomas B\u00f8hn et al., Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans<\/em>, 153 J. Food Chemistry 207, 207 (2014); European Food Safety Authority, Modification of the residue definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products of animal origin<\/em>, EFSA J., July 2009, at 17, http:\/\/www.efsa.europa.eu\/sites\/default\/files\/scientific_output\/files\/main_documents\/1310.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/FNE5-KBU9]. Glyphosate can penetrate plant surfaces and enter plant tissue, making it difficult or impossible to wash the chemical from food. See<\/em> Bob Hartzler et al., Glyphosate, Weeds, & Crops Grp., Understanding Glyphosate To Increase Performance 4, https:\/\/www.extension.purdue.edu\/extmedia\/gwc\/gwc-2.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/3WTW-8ZVD]; Mark Longstroth, Be careful using RoundUp and other glyphosate herbicides<\/em>, Mich. St. U. Extension (July 8, 2011), http:\/\/msue.anr.msu.edu\/news\/be_careful_using_round_up_and_other_glyphosate_herbicides [https:\/\/perma.cc\/R2SC-RA8F]; Friends of the Earth Europe, Human Contamination by Glyphosate 3 (2013), https:\/\/www.foeeurope.org\/sites\/default\/files\/press_releases\/foee_4_human_contamination_glyphosate.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/FRQ8-8VB4] (citing European Food Safety Authority, Opinion on the Modification of the Existing MRL for Lentils, European Food Safety Authority<\/em>, EFSA J., Oct. 2012, at 2, http:\/\/www.efsa.europa.eu\/sites\/default\/files\/scientific_output\/files\/main_documents\/2550.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/JVB8-YTL7]). Glyphosate can also accumulate in foods such as meat and eggs derived from animals that were fed corn or soy treated with glyphosate. See<\/em> World Health Org., Food & Agric. Org. of the U.N., Pesticide Residues in food \u2013 2005, at 138\u201344, http:\/\/www.fao.org\/fileadmin\/templates\/agphome\/documents\/Pests_Pesticides\/JMPR\/JMPR05report.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/DK5R-KGYE]. After rebuke from the Government Accountability Office, it appears that F.D.A. will begin to test foods\u2014such as GM corn and soy\u2014for glyphosate residue. Carey Gillam, FDA to Start Testing for Glyphosate in Food<\/em>, Civil Eats (Feb. 17, 2016), http:\/\/civileats.com\/2016\/02\/17\/fda-to-start-testing-for-glyphosate-in-food\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/H9EX-UGYU].<\/p>\n

[57]<\/a> See<\/em> Carey Gillam, U.S. researchers find Roundup chemical in water, air<\/em>, Reuters (Aug. 31, 2011, 4:01\u00a0PM), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-glyphosate-pollution-idUSTRE77U61720110831 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/XH27-MAN5].<\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> Grossman, supra <\/em>note 52 (citing William A. Battaglin et al., Glyphosate and Its Degradation Product AMPA Occur Frequently and Widely in U.S. Soils, Surface Water, Groundwater, and Precipitation<\/em>, 50 J. Am. Water Res. Ass\u2019n 275, 275 (2014)). Glyphosate can also be found in human urine. See<\/em> Dirk Br\u00e4ndli & Sara Reinacher, Herbicides found in Human Urine<\/em>,<\/p>\n

2012 Ithaka J. 270, 270\u201372, (2012), www.ithaka-journal.net\/druckversionen\/e052012-herbicides-urine.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/829D-4V37]; Brian D. Curwin et al., Urinary Pesticide Concentrations Among Children, Mothers and Fathers Living in Farm and Non-Farm Households in Iowa<\/em>, 51 Annals Occupational Hygiene 53, 53\u201364 (2007), http:\/\/annhyg.oxfordjournals.org\/content\/51\/1\/53.full [https:\/\/perma.cc\/SH3F-YZWL]; John F. Acquavella et al., Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: results from the Farm Family Exposure Study<\/em>, 112 Envtl. Health Persps. 321, 321\u201325 (2004), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1241861\/pdf\/ehp0112-000321.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/EH76-EXKP]. Our bodies, unfortunately, are not \u201cRoundup Ready.\u201d See <\/em>Marta Kwiatkowska et al., The effect of metabolites and impurities of glyphosate on human erythrocytes (in vitro)<\/em>, 109 Pesticide Biochemistry & Physiology 34, 36\u201339 (2014). Could the rise of synthetic chemical-based agriculture be connected to the rise of cancer? Cf.<\/em> Rising Global Cancer Epidemic<\/em>, Am. Cancer Soc\u2019y (2013), http:\/\/www.cancer.org\/research\/infographicgallery\/rising-global-cancer-epidemic [https:\/\/perma.cc\/DVR2-897H].<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> Myers et al., supra<\/em> note 48, at 10; See EPA\u2019s Risk Assessment is Too Flawed to Proceed: Comments from Environmental Working Group on the EPA\u2019s Proposed Decision to Register EnlistTM Herbicide Containing 2,4-D and Glyphosate<\/em>, Envtl. Working Grp. (June 4, 2014), http:\/\/www.ewg.org\/testimony-official-correspondence\/epa-s-risk-assessment-too-flawed-proceed [https:\/\/perma.cc\/A29M-6XF6]; Landrigan & Benbrook, supra<\/em> note 1, at 694 (clarifying that studies on \u201clow-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects\u201d and \u201chealth effects in infants and children\u201d are essential, but absent from the process that approved use of certain herbicides in cultivation of GM crops); see also<\/em> Robin Mesnage et al., Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure<\/em>, 14 Envtl. Health<\/em> 70, <\/em>82 (2015), http:\/\/www.ehjournal.net\/content\/14\/1\/70 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/8ANR-G3LT] (documenting that glyphosate-based herbicides at an \u201cultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations\u201d). But see<\/em> Barbara Lewis, European scientists say weedkiller glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer<\/em>, Reuters (Nov. 12, 2015), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2015\/11\/13\/us-health-eu-monsanto-idUSKCN0T117820151113 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6DE8-EZXL].<\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, John Deike, Brazil Seeks Ban on Monsanto Herbicide Due to Alarming Toxicity Risks, <\/em>EcoWatch (Mar. 27, 2014), http:\/\/ecowatch.com\/2014\/03\/27\/brazil-ban-monsanto-herbicide-toxic\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/3UEQ-BRNF] (noting efforts or bans in Brazil, El Salvador, and Sri Lanka); Sarah, Dutch Ban Roundup, France and Brazil to Follow<\/em>, Healthy Home Economist, http:\/\/www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com\/roundup-banned-netherlands-france-brazil-likely-soon-follow\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/V29P-NUCA]; Grossman, supra<\/em> note 52 (noting efforts or bans in Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands).<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> Grossman, supra <\/em>note 52. Many of the same concerns that apply to glyphosate apply to a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid\u2014a Dow chemical cocktail called \u201cEnlist Duo,\u201d which EPA approved last year for use in cultivation of GM corn and soy. Rebecca Trager, EPA under pressure over Enlist Duo herbicide<\/em>, Chemistry World (June 26, 2015), http:\/\/www.rsc.org\/chemistryworld\/2015\/06\/epa-under-pressure-over-enlist-duo-herbicide [https:\/\/perma.cc\/HZ68-ADYH]. But additional concerns abound as well. \u201c2,4-D,\u201d as it\u2019s called, has been declared a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization, has been linked to many-fold increases in non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and was one of several active ingredients in Agent Orange (though probably not the worst of them). See <\/em>Shelia H. Zahm & Aaron Blair, Pesticides and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma<\/em>, 52 Cancer Res.<\/a> 5485s, 5485s\u201388s (1992) http:\/\/cancerres.aacrjournals.org\/content\/52\/19_Supplement\/5485s.full.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/XDJ8-7487]; Press Release, Int\u2019l Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Org., IARC Monographs evaluate DDT, lindane, and 2,4-D (June 23, 2015), http:\/\/www.iarc.fr\/en\/media-centre\/pr\/2015\/pdfs\/pr236_E.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/ZFK7-N6X8]; Registration of Enlist Duo<\/em>, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, http:\/\/www2.epa.gov\/ingredients-used-pesticide-products\/registration-enlist-duo [http:\/\/perma.cc\/TB6B-K5YA]. Accordingly, E.P.A. has since attempted to revoke its approval of Enlist Duo. See<\/em> Karl Plume, CORRECTED-UPDATE 2-EPA asks court to withdraw registration of Dow herbicide<\/em>, Reuters (Nov. 25, 2015), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/agriculture-dow-enlist-idUSL3N13K4EC20151125 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/K9AT-5G5B].<\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Stephen O. Duke, Perspectives on transgenic, herbicide-resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction<\/em>, 71 Pest Mgmt. Sci. 652, 652 (2015); Natasha Gilbert, Case studies: A hard look at GM crops<\/em>, Nature: News Features (May 1, 2013), http:\/\/www.nature.com\/news\/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/GJ46-KXPV]; Econ. Res. Serv., U.S Dep\u2019t of Agric., Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, Economic Research Report No. 162 (2014), http:\/\/www.ers.usda.gov\/media\/1282246\/err162.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/34UL-AUCY]; Carey Gillam, Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study<\/em>, Reuters (Oct. 1, 2012), http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2012\/10\/02\/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/4X4K-6E66]; Food & Water Watch, supra<\/em> note 54, at 2. See generally<\/em> Comm. on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Econ. and Sustainability, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 72\u201383 (2010), http:\/\/www.nap.edu\/read\/12804\/chapter\/4#72 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/ADS9-XMHQ].<\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Gillam, supra<\/em> note 62; Jack Kaskey, \u2018Mounting Evidence\u2019 of Bug-Resistant Corn Seen by EPA<\/em>, Bloomberg Bus. (Sept. 5, 2012), http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2012-09-04\/-mounting-evidence-of-bug-resistant-corn-seen-by-epa [https:\/\/perma.cc\/YEL6-DUGS].<\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> See<\/em> Lucila T. Herbert et al., Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behaviour<\/em>, 217 J. Experimental Biology 3457, 3461 (2014), http:\/\/jeb.biologists.org\/content\/jexbio\/early\/2014\/07\/23\/jeb.109520.full.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/W9Y2-LV2F]; John M. Pleasants & Karen S. Oberhauser, Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population<\/em>, 6 Insect Conservation & Diversity 135, 142 (2013), http:\/\/www.mlmp.org\/results\/findings\/pleasants_and_oberhauser_2012_milkweed_loss_in_ag_fields.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/K2WW-9HTK]; Letter from Earl Blumenauer et al., U.S. House of Representatives, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Envtl. Prot. Agency (Sept. 30, 2014), http:\/\/www.blumenauer.house.gov\/images\/stories\/2014\/Pollinator-Letter-to-EPA-9-30.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/3YHL-PDP9s]; cf.<\/em> Francisco S\u00e1nchez-Bayo, Insights: The trouble with neonicotinoids<\/em>, 346 Sci. 806, 806\u201307 (2014); GMO Crops, Neonicotinoids Will Be Weeded out of U.S. Wildlife Refuges<\/em>, NBC News (Aug. 6, 2014), http:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/science\/environment\/gmo-crops-neonicotinoids-will-be-weeded-out-u-s-wildlife-n174211 [http:\/\/perma.cc\/4PWS-D93G]; Hannah Hoag, How to Help Stop Industrial Agriculture From Killing the Monarch Butterfly, <\/em>TakePart (July 31, 2014), http:\/\/www.takepart.com\/article\/2014\/07\/30\/monarch-butterfly-numbers-are-plummeting-and-heres-what-you-can-do-help [https:\/\/perma.cc\/DJZ4-4E9M]; Christina Sarich, 37 Million Bees Found Dead in Canada After Large GMO Crop Planting<\/em>, Nat. Soc\u2019y (Nov. 9, 2014), http:\/\/naturalsociety.com\/37-million-bees-found-dead-canada-large-gmo-crop-planting\/#ixzz3XohcLGB2 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/5DSQ-X9MT].<\/p>\n

[65]<\/a> See<\/em> Insects and Pollinators<\/em>, Nat. Res. Conservation Serv., U.S. Dep\u2019t of Agric., http:\/\/www.nrcs.usda.gov\/wps\/portal\/nrcs\/main\/national\/plantsanimals\/pollinate\/#sthash.ohpzr7Zq.dpuf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/SSY7-DV35] (\u201cSome scientists estimate that one out of every three bites of food we eat exists because of animal pollinators like bees, butterflies and moths, birds and bats, and beetles and other insects.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[66]<\/a> Presidential Memorandum, Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators (June 20, 2014), https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/the-press-office\/2014\/06\/20\/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b [https:\/\/perma.cc\/HBX9-AT32].<\/p>\n

[67]<\/a> See<\/em> Press Release, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species Litigation Revised Settlement Agreement \u2013 Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (June 23, 2015), http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pesticides\/san-francisco-bay-area-endangered-species-litigation-revised-settlement-agreement-center [https:\/\/perma.cc\/AD9D-9WM7].<\/p>\n

[68]<\/a> Landrigan & Benbrook, supra<\/em> note 1, at 695; see also<\/em> Genetically Modified Foods<\/em>, Harvard T.H. Chan Sch. of Pub. Health, http:\/\/www.chgeharvard.org\/topic\/genetically-modified-foods [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6XJ2-3FXU] (\u201cThe decrease in glutelin levels in rice [through genetic modification], for example, was associated with an unintended increase in levels of compounds called prolamines, which can affect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its potential to induce an allergic response.\u201d); Genetic Engineering in Agriculture<\/em>, Union of Concerned Scientists, http:\/\/www.ucsusa.org\/our-work\/food-agriculture\/our-failing-food-system\/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VfTOGpfHST0 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/X2PV-XKQC] (noting that GM crops \u201cmay spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them\u201d); cf.<\/em> Jonathan A. Bernstein et al., Clinical and laboratory investigation of allergy to genetically modified foods<\/em>, 111 Envtl. Health Persps. 1114, 1120 (2003), http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1241560\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/22KB-C9NJ] (\u201cThe experiences with StarLink corn and in occupational cohorts exposed to grain dusts suggest that the development of methods to be used for postmarket consumer and occupational health surveillance may be useful.\u201d); Julie A. Nordlee et al., Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans<\/em>, 334 New Eng. J. Med. 688, 688 (1996), http:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1056\/NEJM199603143341103 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/UC2J-C8G2] (showing that \u201cthat an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic engineering\u201d); Belinda Martineau, When Food Is Genetically Modified<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Oct. 20, 2015), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/10\/31\/opinion\/when-food-is-genetically-modified.html?ref=topics [https:\/\/perma.cc\/RZ88-ETX9] (\u201c[B]ecause each product [of crop genetic engineering] is different \u2014 not only in the ways genetic engineers design and expect them to be, but also by potentially containing unique unintended and unexpected changes \u2014 the safety of each one must be assessed individually.\u201d).<\/p>\n

Starlink corn is a genetically engineered variety that was approved only for industrial and industrial animal agriculture uses but which contaminated the human food supply by cross-pollination, leading to litigation and food recalls. See<\/em> Negligence Suit Is Filed Over Altered Corn<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Dec. 4, 2000), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2000\/12\/04\/business\/04CORN.html [https:\/\/perma.cc\/TMZ6-MMNQ]; Comm. on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Econ. and Sustainability, supra <\/em>note 62, at 171.<\/p>\n

[69]<\/a> See<\/em> Genetically Modified Foods<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 68.<\/p>\n

[70]<\/a> Grocery Mfrs. Ass\u2019n v. Sorrell, 102 F.\u00a0Supp.\u00a03d 583, 634 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2015), appeal docketed<\/em>, No 15-1504 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2015) (argued Oct. 8, 2015).<\/p>\n

[71]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Meredith G. Schafer et al., The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S.<\/em>, PLoS ONE, Oct. 2011, at 3, http:\/\/www.plosone.org\/article\/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0025736&representation=PDF [https:\/\/perma.cc\/ACF5-P2T3]; Stephanie E. Cox, Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?<\/em>, 13 Drake J. Agric. L. 401, 405\u201309 (2008), http:\/\/students.law.drake.edu\/aglawjournal\/docs\/agVol13No2-Cox.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/8CXH-9Y6W]; Dorothy Du, Rethinking Risks: Should Socioeconomic and Ethical Considerations be Incorporated Into the Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops?<\/em>, 26 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 376, 381 (2012), http:\/\/jolt.law.harvard.edu\/articles\/pdf\/v26\/26HarvJLTech375.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/8CXH-9Y6W] (\u201cGene flow through pollen drift and the movement of seeds can devastate conventional and organic farmers whose crops may be devalued or rendered unmarketable by the presence of [genetically modified] recombinant DNA.\u201d (citations omitted)); cf. Negligence Suit Is Filed Over Altered Corn<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 68.<\/p>\n

[72]<\/a> H.R. 112, Gen. Assemb., 2013-2014 Sess. (Vt. 2014), http:\/\/www.leg.state.vt.us\/docs\/2014\/Acts\/ACT120.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/Y769-SSAA]; see also<\/em> Food Labeling: Declaration of Ingredients, 56 Fed. Reg. 28592, 28592, 28597, 28600, 28616 (July 21, 1991) (discussing the importance of food labeling to the practice of religion).<\/p>\n

[73]<\/a> See<\/em> Pollack, supra<\/em> note 29; Kosher Fish List<\/em>, Chabad.org, http:\/\/www.chabad.org\/library\/article_cdo\/aid\/82675\/jewish\/Kosher-Fish-List.htm [https:\/\/perma.cc\/Q6X4-YHPK]; cf.<\/em> Leviticus <\/em>19:19 (forbidding certain kinds of genetic mixing); Deuteronomy<\/em> 22:9\u201311.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Three hundred] environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants\u201d have all expressed concerns about the fish\u2019s approval. FDA Approves First Genetically Engineered Animal for Human Consumption Over the Objections of Millions<\/em>, Ctr. for Food Safety (Nov. 19, 2015), http:\/\/www.centerforfoodsafety.org\/press-releases\/4131\/fda-approves-first-genetically-engineered-animal-for-human-consumption-over-the-objections-of-millions [https:\/\/perma.cc\/YW9S-3SLU]. Given such concerns\u2014ranging from ecological or environmental, to ethical or religious\u2014more than sixty supermarket chains, including some of the largest in the country, are refusing to sell the so-called \u201cFrankenfish\u201d when it does come to market. See <\/em>Nicole Mormann, Costco Joins a Host of Retailers Refusing to Sell GMO Salmon<\/em>, TakePart (Nov. 25, 2015), http:\/\/www.takepart.com\/article\/2015\/11\/25\/gmo-salmon-costco [https:\/\/perma.cc\/B3ZC-NNAL]; Tim Schwab, GMO Salmon Declared Safe to Eat, But Not Grow, in U.S. Here\u2019s Why<\/em>, Food & Water Watch, (Dec. 4, 2015), http:\/\/www.foodandwaterwatch.org\/news\/gmo-salmon-declared-safe-eat-not-grow-us-here%E2%80%99s-why [https:\/\/perma.cc\/P4LV-9JTK].<\/p>\n

[74]<\/a> Pope Francis, Laudato Si\u2019: On Care for Our Common Home 99 (May 24, 2015), http:\/\/w2.vatican.va\/content\/dam\/francesco\/pdf\/encyclicals\/documents\/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/LM2C-3UXW].<\/p>\n

[75]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[76]<\/a> See<\/em> Spitznagel & Taleb, supra <\/em>note 1; cf.<\/em> Comm. on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Econ. and Sustainability, supra<\/em> note 62, at 169\u201370 (2010) (\u201cGene flow of GE traits could jeopardize the economic value of the entire harvest of non-GE-crop farmers by rendering their output unsuitable for high-value markets. They could also have unfavorable effects on the levels of trust that exist between market participants.\u201d (citation omitted)); Roberto A. Ferdman, Bye, bye, bananas<\/em>, Wash. Post: Wonkblog (Dec. 4, 2015), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/wonk\/wp\/2015\/12\/04\/the-worlds-most-popular-banana-could-go-extinct\/?tid=sm_fb [https:\/\/perma.cc\/4MV8-7SA6].<\/p>\n

[77]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Carey Gillam, Washington state sues lobbyists over campaign against GMO labeling<\/em> (Oct. 16, 2015), Reuters, http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSBRE99F19B20131016; cf. Leviticus<\/em> 19:11 (\u201cDo not lie.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[78]<\/a> See<\/em> Andrew Dyke & Robert Whelan, ECONorthwest, GE Foods Labeling Cost Study Findings 7 (2014), https:\/\/consumersunion.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/86\/2014\/09\/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6HAN-HHNT] (concluding that labeling of GM foods in the United States would cause a median cost of an additional $2.30 per person per year). Everyone \u201clargely agree[s] that simply adding the wording would not drive up consumer costs.\u201d Lee, supra<\/em> note 2. A different article that estimated a much higher cost increase was flawed because it assumed that \u201call cost increases [would] be passed along to food consumers, as opposed to being absorbed by\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. companies or supermarkets.\u201d See id<\/em>. The Washington Post<\/em>\u2019s Fact Checker blog rated a statement based on the article worthy of \u201cThree Pinocchios.\u201d See id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the possible substantial price increase predicted by the \u201cThree Pinocchios\u201d article would come, if at all, as a result of food company choice: For many reasons, consumers would prefer non-GM foods, so \u201c[t]o remain competitive, companies would then need to create new products without GMO ingredients.\u201d Id. <\/em>The argument advanced by food companies that GM foods should not be labeled because food costs would increase is thus hypocritical and misleading. The argument is hypocritical because the cost increase would be a result of those companies\u2019 own choices: first, the rational choice to meet consumer demand\u2014demand that will shift once consumers are empowered by more information about their food; and, second, the questionable choice to pass the costs of meeting that demand onto consumers. See id.<\/em> The argument is misleading because it assumes that consumers would make different purchasing decisions if they had more information about their food, yet concludes that consumers should not be provided that information: it assumes that the lack of labeling, which the argument defends, misleads consumers. Cf.<\/em> Fraud<\/em>, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining consumer fraud as \u201c[a]ny intentional\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. false pretense\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. made by a seller or advertiser of goods or services to induce a person or people in general to buy\u201d).<\/p>\n

[79]<\/a> See <\/em>Lanza, supra<\/em> note 19, at 4\u20135; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, \u00a7\u00a02591 et seq.<\/em>; Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a021a-92c.<\/p>\n

Lawmakers in approximately thirty states have proposed legislation that would require labeling of GM foods. See<\/em> State Labeling Initiatives<\/em>, Ctr. for Food Safety, http:\/\/www.centerforfoodsafety.org\/issues\/976\/ge-food-labeling\/state-labeling-initiatives [https:\/\/perma.cc\/U3DA-KFP5].<\/p>\n

[80]<\/a> See One Million Strong: Record-Breaking Comments Delivered to FDA to Label GE Foods<\/em>, Just Label It (Mar. 27, 2012), http:\/\/www.justlabelit.org\/one-million-strong-record-breaking-comments-delivered-to-fda-to-label-ge-foods\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/39D9-ENUE].<\/p>\n

[81]<\/a> See More than 700 Chefs and Restaurant Owners Push Congress to Label Genetically Modified Foods<\/em>, AllGov (Dec. 5, 2014), http:\/\/www.allgov.com\/news\/controversies\/more-than-700-chefs-and-restaurant-owners-push-congress-to-label-genetically-modified-foods-141205?news=855016 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/AD7B-XQSG].<\/p>\n

[82]<\/a> See<\/em> Labeling Supporters<\/em>, Just Label It (June 10, 2014), http:\/\/www.justlabelit.org\/right-to-know-center\/labeling-supporters\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/5M7L-VZH6]. And don\u2019t forget Neil Young. See<\/em> Lorraine Chow, Neil Young, Willie Nelson, Dave Matthews, John Mellencamp: Help Us Stop the DARK Act<\/em>, EcoWatch (Dec. 14, 2015, 10:29 AM), http:\/\/ecowatch.com\/2015\/12\/14\/stop-dark-act\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/Z8B9-8DFP]; Neil Young, The Monsanto Years (Reprise Records, 2015). All four of the famous musicians mentioned in Help Us Stop the DARK Act<\/em> are board members of Farm Aid. See <\/em>Chow, supra<\/em> note 82.<\/em><\/p>\n

[83]<\/a> Stephanie Strom, Campbell Labels Will Disclose G.M.O. Ingredients<\/em>, N.Y. Times (Jan. 7, 2016), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/01\/08\/business\/campbell-labels-will-disclose-gmo-ingredients.html?_r=0 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/BHJ8-3SSH].<\/p>\n

[84]<\/a> See<\/em> Landrigan & Benbrook, supra<\/em> note 1; International Labeling Laws<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 4.<\/p>\n

[85]<\/a> See<\/em> Landrigan & Benbrook, supra<\/em> note 1; International Labeling Laws<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 4. And although they have been advanced as a \u201ccompromise\u201d by food industry groups, QR code labels\u2014\u201cQuick Response,\u201d two-dimensional barcodes that are readable by smartphones and when scanned would indicate on a smartphone whether a food is GM\u2014are almost certainly not a satisfactory solution. See<\/em> Mary E. Kustin, Nothing Smart About \u201cSmart Label\u201d<\/em>, Envtl. Working Grp.: AgMag Blog (Dec. 2, 2015), http:\/\/www.ewg.org\/agmag\/2015\/12\/nothing-smart-about-smart-label [https:\/\/perma.cc\/S8KL-SXD8]. Approximately \u201c88% of American shoppers would prefer to not<\/em> have to scan a barcode just to find out whether their food contains GMOs\u201d and more than 40% of consumers\u2014especially elderly, low-income, or otherwise disadvantaged consumers\u2014do not even have smartphones. See<\/em> id<\/em>.; Morran, supra<\/em> note 2.<\/p>\n

[86]<\/a> The Federalist No. 78, at 381 (Lawrence Goldman ed., 2008).<\/p>\n

[87]<\/a> See<\/em> Jenny Hopkinson, Pols ask Obama to keep GMO pledge<\/em>, Politico (Jan. 16, 2014), http<\/a>:\/\/www.politico.com\/story\/2014\/01\/barack-obama-gmo-labeling-102266 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/NYF8-59ZF]. That Politico<\/em> article appears to misquote President Obama by one word, substituting an \u201cif\u201d for the \u201cwhether.\u201d See<\/em> fooddemocracynow, Obama Promises to Label GMOs<\/em>, Youtube (Oct. 6, 2011), https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=zqaaB6NE1TI [https:\/\/perma.cc\/SH8M-AKMD] (streaming a video in which Obama speaks the promise); SunfoodTV, Bill Maher Talks Monsanto, Genetically Modified Food (GMOs) \u2013 HD<\/em>, Youtube (June 28, 2012) https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=csSw3fYnICc [https:\/\/perma.cc\/M4JE-ZWB9].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Labeling GM Foods: Democracy and Autonomy by Alex G. Leone, JD ’16\u00a0 I. Introduction A bipartisan majority of Americans asserts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jol-online","category-jol-online-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQ7o-De","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}