Immediately after U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack concluded his remarks at the Good Food Festival in Chicago Thursday, he was approached by a couple of admirers — and one ardent supporter of GMO labeling who wanted to bend the politician’s ear.
The debate on labeling products that contain GMOs — genetically modified organisms — has roiled the food and agriculture industries in recent weeks. Many consumers say they have a right to know what’s in their food; those opposed to labeling say it gives the wrong impression the food is unsafe.
A Vermont law mandating labeling is set to go into effect July 1. Earlier this month, a U.S. Senate bill that would have pre-empted the Vermont law and established a national voluntary standard stalled on the Senate floor.
In a brief interview, Vilsack, a former two-term governor of Iowa, lamented the debate that’s divided the farming community. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Were you disappointed the bill stalled in the Senate?
A: I’m disappointed because I think it’s an opportunity at this point in time to bring agriculture together as opposed to continuing this dispute within agriculture.
So it was a disappointment in that respect. I think it’s also going to create a confusing mixture of ways in which individual companies and individual states are going to approach this issue. I think it begs for some sort of standardization. And I’m hoping that despite the setback that folks in the Senate don’t stop working on this issue and figure out a way to reach common ground.
Q: Do you think that’s realistic before July 1, before Vermont’s law goes into effect?
A: I think it’s certainly possible and doable if people spend the time and are willing to understand that they’re not going to get everything they want. That’s the nature of compromise. We seem to have lost the art of compromise in this country, which I think is unfortunate.
I think there are very valid reasons for consumers to have information. I think there are also concerns that if the information is conveyed in a particular way it sends the wrong message about the safety of the product. And I think there’s deep concern on the part of food companies and producers that if you send that wrong message you create a circumstance where we will have issue with the costs or supply of food that are unnecessary.
Because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that GMO food is unsafe to consume. You may not agree with the process. You may have disagreements about the science in terms of what’s better for the land and so forth. But at the end of the day, it’s not about food safety.
Q: You’re in favor of a national mandatory standard, correct?
A: I really think that’s the only way to deal with this. This has to be mandated. And I think frankly that food companies recognize that and that’s why so many food companies have come out since the failure of the Senate bill to say, OK, fine, we’re going to put a label on it to comport with Vermont law.
Q: And you see consumers scanning a QR code on a product with their phones as a possible compromise?
A: That’s certainly not the only way it should be done. There should be other ways. There should be an understanding that’s easier for a larger company than a smaller company. There should be enough time to educate consumers about where this information is, so when it kicks in, they know precisely where to look for the information. There’s a process the industry would have to go through and frankly they should have done this 20 years ago. But they didn’t, so now they’re playing catch-up.
Q: From a consumer perspective, it can be frustrating and difficult to know who to believe and what information to trust. Is there a need for more USDA funding into research into these issues so people can trust that the research isn’t tainted or influenced by industry?
A: The simple answer to your question is that this administration has believed all along there needs to be more publicly financed research.
We need to increase innovation and productivity here and around the world, in order to meet the demand for food. I don’t think there’s a full appreciation for how much food we’re going to have to produce to be able to feed 9 billion people. … (Global food security) is an enormous problem that we have got to face and America’s got to lead. And America is leading, but part of that is making sure we have adequate resources and agricultural research.
My budget is less today than it was when I first became secretary. It’s because agriculture doesn’t have the public understanding in the same way the Defense Department does, or the Veterans Affairs Department does. But you can’t have that if you’re fussing and fighting within agriculture about labels or about production methods. You’ve got to unify.
Twitter @GregTrotterTrib
