The Role of Communication in the GMO-Labeling Debate

GMO-labeling is the most complex and contentious issue being debated in today's agricultural policy. Policy makers must balance the desires of consumers with the practical needs of the industry. When it comes to policy, perceptions by the public and decision makers can outweigh the facts of an argument. The role of communication becomes increasingly important as different groups offer competing messages. The issue of GMOs is the largest public relations war agriculture has fought in the last two decades, and so far the industry appears to be losing. 

What is a GMO?

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are organisms whose genes have been engineered and altered in ways beyond the capabilities of nature. In functional terms, GMOs are seeds that have been modified to resist herbicides and increase production yields. According to a recent article by ABC News, 75 to 80 percent of foods contain GMOs. The chart (right) shows the increased prevalence of different GMO crops over the last 20 years.

Initial scientific studies discovered no safety concerns with GMOs, which have been tested and approved by the FDA. However, labeling advocates argue that not enough long-term research is available to trust the safety of GMOs, and consumers should have the right to make their own decisions concerning their health. 


Pro-labeling vs. Anti-labeling

Health and consumer rights' groups advocate a mandatory labeling law, which would require all products containing GMOs to be clearly labeled. According to the group Citizens for GMO Labeling, the movement is focused on food and government transparency. The food industry, including companies such as Pepsi Co., biotech seed producers such as Monsanto, and organizations such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have invested time and money to oppose mandatory GMO-labeling policies. They argue that without scientific evidence to support concerns, labeling would place an undue burden on producers. It could also lead to higher grocery prices. 

As a compromise, the GMA proposed a SmartLabel system, which would provide product information to shoppers who scan a bar code, go online, call a 1-800 number listed on the package. Most policy makers and industry leaders are willing to support a voluntary labeling program, but there is much opposition to mandatory, on the package labeling. Conversely, pro-labeling advocates are not willing to accept SmartLabel as a compromise. A statement released by the GMA stated more than 300 million Americans have access to the program through the Internet. However, pro-labeling advocates argue this program would discriminate against the elderly, low-income shoppers, and minorities. To see full statements about SmartLabel, visit this link.

Over the last month, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has facilitated meetings between the food industry and labeling advocates. Vilsack testified to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in early February that the two sides were unable to find enough common ground to proceed. 


State-labeling vs. Federal-labeling

Labeling advocates knew they would be unable to find enough support to push a mandatory program through Congress, so they began focusing their efforts at the state level. After a few states failed to pass mandatory labeling laws, advocates finally succeeded last year. Mandatory GMO-labeling will take effect on July 1, 2016, in Vermont. Similar legislation is pending in other New England states, according to Food Safety News. While labeling advocates see these laws as small successes, others believe a patchwork set of food standards will hinder the market and confuse consumers. 

In response to Vermont, the House of Representatives passed a bill to block state GMO-labeling laws and implement a national voluntary program. However, this bill, nicknamed DARK (Denying Americans the Right-to-Know) by opponents, has been unable to gain bipartisan support in the Senate. In a report by Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Minority Leader Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) both expressed resolve to pass federal legislation. No one wants to see a collection of varied state laws. In the meantime, House Republicans have called for more public education about GMOs by the USDA, but Vilsack said it is up to the federal government to resolve this issue and public relations efforts should be left to the food industry. 

Role of Communication

The Right to Know campaign supports
mandatory labeling of GMO products.

As this debate continues to unfold, both sides have courted the favor of the public. Despite having scientific evidence and a majority of policy makers on its side, the food industry has fallen behind pro-labeling groups in the public relations war. I believe three communication principles demonstrate why the Right-to-Know campaign has been gaining traction.



1. Speak with one voice, one message 

• Labeling groups push one message: transparency + consumer rights
• Anti-labeling groups push multiple messages: scientific evidence, rise of grocery costs, market difficulties, legal rights, etc.

2. Understand the audience

• Labeling groups focus on the impact and desires of consumers
• Anti-labeling groups have not adequately addressed consumer concerns 

3. Provide credible information and resources

• Pro-labeling videos, advertisements, and blogs have exploded on the Internet
• Anti-labeling information is difficult to find; consumers distrust information coming from politicians and large companies

Looking Ahead

To hear the most recent Congressional updates about GMO-labeling, watch the video below. Labeling advocates and industry leaders continue to wait for Senator Hoeven (R-ND), Senator Stabenow (D-MI), and the rest of the Senate Agriculture Committee to reveal a bipartisan compromise, which could be released soon. Share your views on the GMO-labeling debate in the comments or contact your state representatives.