The Future of GMO Labeling: How a New Federal Labeling Scheme will Alter Public Disclosure
The F uture of GMO Labeling : How a New Federal Labeling Scheme will Alter Public Disclosure
Washington University Open Scholarship 0 1 2
0 Part of theEnvironmental Law Commons , Food and Drug Law Commons, and theHealth Law
1 Thi s Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information , please contact , USA
2 Maria DeGiovanni, Th e Future of GMO Labeling: How a New Federal Labeling Scheme will Alter Public Disclosure, 95 Wash. U. L. Rev. 705 (2017). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol95/iss3/4
Maria DeGiovanni Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview and Policy Commons Recommended Citation
-
Genetic modification is a process used for a myriad of purposes,
including the cultivation of plant species that ultimately find their way into
countless food products across the world. 1 As the usage of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) has grown, so has the public debate
surrounding their presence in food, and, more specifically, their undisclosed
presence in food. Until recently, the United States maintained next to no
regulation on the labeling of GMO products.2 After many state legislatures
began proposing and passing GMO-labeling laws, Congress passed one of
its own.3 This Note will discuss the implications of the federal labeling
scheme, and posits that although the scheme may disappoint grassroots
antiGMO interests, the scheme will ultimately have the effect of providing
consumers with the “right to know” what is in their food, and will reduce
the presence of genetically modified (GM) foods in the marketplace. Part I
provides background on GMOs and explains the regulatory role of the FDA.
Part II discusses GMO-labeling legislation passed by certain states, a law
recently passed by Congress, and the legal challenges faced by lawmakers
when passing this type of legislation. Part III argues that the federal
regulatory scheme is not a death knell for consumer autonomy, and that it
will do little to weaken the fight against GMOs.
I. BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF GMO TECHNOLOGY
Today, the words “genetically modified” tend to evoke divisiveness. Yet,
the phenomenon of genetic manipulation existed long before the birth of
genetic bioengineering just a few decades ago. Most students learn about
Gregor Mendel in high school biology, the Augustinian monk who, in the
mid-nineteenth century, conducted experiments by crossbreeding pea
plants.4 Mendel’s studies were a systematic imitation of what farmers had
done for centuries: combining the genes of different species of plants and
animals to cultivate desirable traits.5 This type of genetic modification can
1.
2.
3.
4.
LY5H.
5.
Id.
See discussion infra Part I.
See discussion infra Part II.
See discussion infra Part II.C.
Gregor Mendel: The Father of Modern Genetics, OFF. NIH HIST.,
https://perma.cc/Q9T2occur naturally or through human intervention and is now unremarkable.6
Many of the plants and animals bred today are the products of such passive
or active manipulation. 7
Centuries after Mendel pondered pea plant variations in his monastery
garden, two American biochemists introduced recombinant-DNA (rDNA)
technology, through which they isolated fragments of a gene from one
bacterium and inserted it into another.8 The foreign DNA then replicated
naturally, creating an entirely new type of bacterium.9 This discovery came
at a pivotal time for a notable player in the genetic engineering game—
Monsanto. The company, which at the time was solely in the chemical
manufacturing business, was feeling the effects of rising oil prices and
public backlash against pesticides. 10 During the seventies, Monsanto
stepped tentatively into the field, allocating a small amount of resources to
genetic engineering research.11
But a momentous event changed the company’s dallying approach. In
1980, the Supreme Court held that man-made microorganisms are
patentable subject matter.12 The decision helped to catalyze a biotechnology
boom. Money surged into the industry, even funding companies who had
yet to develop patentable organisms.13 Spurred by this breakneck growth,
Monsanto devoted more resources to genetic engineering and the
development of its own microorganisms.14 By 1990, Monsanto had invested
over $800 million in biotech and had developed a number of products using
genetic engineering.15 The attitude of industry insiders during this period
was one of rapturous optimism and their testimonies conjured utopian
prospects: bountiful crop yields untouched by chemicals and grown from
soil devoid of fertilizers, which could grow as rapidly as the fabled
beanstalk into a pristine atmosphere unmarred by pollution caused by the
farm industry.16 All things seemed possible, a canonical idealism perh (...truncated)