Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling, Congressional Panel Says

Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling, Congressional Panel Says
|

WASHINGTON -- It's pretty rare that members of Congress and all the witnesses they've called will declare out loud that Americans are just too ignorant to be given a piece of information, but that was a key conclusion of a session of the House Agriculture Committee this week.

The issue was genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they're often known in the food industry. And members of the subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, as well as their four experts, agreed that the genetic engineering of food crops has been a thorough success responsible for feeding the hungry, improving nutrition and reducing the use of pesticides.

People who oppose GMOs or want them labeled so that consumers can know what they're eating are alarmists who thrive on fear and ignorance, the panel agreed. Labeling GMO foods would only stoke those fears, and harm a beneficial thing, so it should not be allowed, the lawmakers and witnesses agreed.

"I really worry that labeling does more harm than good, that it leads too many people away from it and it diminishes the market for GMOs that are the solution to a lot of the problems we face," said David Just, a professor at Cornell University and co-director of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) agreed with Just and asked him, "What is the biggest drawback? Is it the ignorance of what the product is, just from a lack of education?"

"It is ignorance of the product, and it's a general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed or treated in some way that they don't quite understand," Just said.

"Even using long scientific-sounding words make it sound like it's been grown in a test tube, and people get scared of it," Just added.

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) agreed with another witness, Calestous Juma, an international development professor at Harvard's Kennedy School, that political leaders had been cowed by misinformed populaces into bending on GMOs, especially in the European Union, where Juma said hundreds of millions of euros have been spent on studies that have found GMOs safe.

"It's obvious that while the science in the EU in incontrovertible about the health and safety benefits of genetically modified hybrid crops, that because of politics, people are afraid to lead, and inform consumers," Schrader said.

Juma cited an extensive report by the European Commission. (There is at least one controversial group that disagrees with him.)

Certainly, there is misinformation about GMOs, as highlighted in a New York Times feature on a Hawaiian ban of most GMOs. But entirely missing from the hearing was any suggestion that there are real concerns about the impact of genetically engineered food, such as the growth of pesticide-resistant "super weeds," over-reliance on single-crop factory farming, decreased biodiversity, and a lack of a consistent approval process. (Read more pros and cons here.)

The issue may soon gain fresh relevance on Capitol Hill, where a measure backed by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) to stop states from requiring GMO labeling could get marked up as early as September. The bill also would allow genetically engineered food to be labeled "100 percent natural."

The idea of the bill brought Ben and Jerry's co-founder Jerry Greenfield to Capitol Hill Thursday to push back, along with Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who backs labeling.

Greenfield told HuffPost that labeling is a simple, inexpensive matter of letting people know what's in their food, and letting them decide what they want to support and eat.

"This idea that consumers will be scared away -- the label will be a very simple thing, a few words on a container saying something like 'may be produced with genetic engineering.' It's not scary," Greenfield said.

Watch the video above to see experts and members of Congress conclude Americans should be denied GMO labels because they are too ignorant, as well as Greenfield's reaction.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Aging in Office
George W. Bush: Jan. 11, 2001:Nov. 5, 2008(01 of12)
Open Image Modal
Presidents may enter the office bright-eyed, but they tend to leave with a few more wrinkles and a lot more gray hairs. Compare a younger President George W. Bush, left, before the economic crisis, before Iraq and before Sept. 11, 2001, to Bush in early November. (credit:Getty Images)
Bill Clinton, family leave bill signing: Nov. 11, 2000(02 of12)
Open Image Modal
Scandal certainly takes a toll. Bill Clinton may have dallied with a younger woman, but that couldn't stop the aging process as he approached the end of his tenure, pictured here on the right. (credit:Getty Images)
Pres. George H. W. Bush(03 of12)
Open Image Modal
Maybe serving a single term isn't so bad. The elder George H. W. Bush looked pretty much the same early in his presidency, left, as he did later. (credit:Getty Images / AP)
Ronald Reagan: Kan. 1981 in L.A.: posing in D.C.(04 of12)
Open Image Modal
Could it just be the Hollywood lighting? Ronald Reagan looked younger in a portrait taken in Los Angeles the month of his inauguration, left, than during his last months in office. (credit:Getty Images)
Jimmy Carter, Feb. 1977: Oct. 1, 1980(05 of12)
Open Image Modal
Like the elder George Bush, Jimmy Carter only served for four years. It appeared to weigh heavily on him. That furrowed brow late in his term, right, couldn't have been good for his complexion. (credit:Getty Images)
Gerald Ford. inauguration: conceding in 1976(06 of12)
Open Image Modal
Gerald Ford was the only U.S. president to never win an election, and is pictured here, on the left, at his inauguration. Is it a trick of the light, or did he really look a little beefier, and a little older, as he later conceded to Carter two years later? (credit:Getty Images / AP)
Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1968: April 1974(07 of12)
Open Image Modal
Watergate clearly took its toll on Richard Nixon. He looked quite different at his inauguration, left, than he did in the midst of the scandal, six years later. (credit:Getty Images)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1st photo - Nov. 29, 1963)(08 of12)
Open Image Modal
Lyndon B. Johnson looks a little grayer and a little more wrinkled late in his administration, but he does appear to have lost a few pounds. Maybe there's a silver lining after all. (credit:AP)
John F. Kennedy, 1961 and Jan. 24, 1963(09 of12)
Open Image Modal
John F. Kennedy appears to have a fuller face at the start of his presidency, as seen in this 1961 on the left. The second photo was taken in January 1963, 10 months before his assassination. (credit:AP / Getty Images)
Dwight D. Eisenhower, March 1, 1953 and Nov. 1, 1960(10 of12)
Open Image Modal
There was no hair to lose for Dwight D. Eisenhower, as first seen in 1953, but his two terms in office aged the man, as evident in the photograph from 1960. (credit:Getty Images)
Harry Truman, 91/1945 and 1/1/1953(11 of12)
Open Image Modal
Harry S Truman took office with the death of President Roosevelt in 1945, and he described his sudden ascent as feeling "like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me." All that pressure can wear on a man, as seen in an aged Truman in 1953, shortly before he left office. (credit:AP / Getty Images)
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933 and Feb. 11, 1945(12 of12)
Open Image Modal
Franklin D. Roosevelt president over the nation as it struggled with the Great Depression and World War II. He served in office for a record four terms. It's not surprise then that he aged so much in office, as seen in 1933 and 1945. (Sources: AP, Getty, the Washington Post) (credit:AP)