Bernie Sanders' State Wants to Unlearn the Lesson of Competition

X
Story Stream
recent articles

When Boris Yeltsin stopped by a Houston grocery store in 1989, his faith in communism began to crumble. "When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people," Yeltsin wrote in his autobiography. Since then, the United States has continued to be phenomenally successful at producing even larger amounts and a wider variety of food. But the bounty and diversity that made such an impression on the Russian president is being taken for granted in current debates about food policy in the United States.

On July 1, the state of Vermont is set to impose a $1,000 per day per product fine on any food manufacturer who fails to disclose on the product label if any ingredients contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Because complying with Vermont's new law will be so burdensome, the effect will be to reduce choices for consumers, limit supply, and increase food prices. And these consequences will be felt far beyond the tiny state's borders.

Activists may argue that the new requirement is simply an effort to improve disclosure and inform consumers about the products they are buying. But the truth is that the Vermont law will cause real economic harm and no tangible benefit.

First, the Vermont law is premised on the belief that GMOs are unhealthy, which is an unsubstantiated view. The National Academies of Science, in a 400-page report on GMOs released in May 2016, concluded that there is "no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops." It's worth remembering this the next time someone on the Left accuses others of being "anti-science." Vermont's mandate is a scare tactic.

Second, the Vermont law is not merely an effort by one sparsely populated state tucked into a liberal corner of our nation to control supermarket shelves in Burlington or Montpelier. Large manufacturers' products reach store shelves through distributed wholesaler networks. The trucks that deliver food from the Midwest to Vermont may make stops in Upstate New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. A key efficiency of the U.S. food market is the ability to sell the same product everywhere. Unique labeling for one state-or, alternatively, avoiding selling a product in every small-town convenience store in Vermont-are both impractical, if not impossible.

Third, if Vermont's GMO labeling law is allowed to go into effect, it could have a domino effect across the states, leading to as disaggregated patchwork of state-based food labeling requirements. Maine and Connecticut are poised to follow. And it would not be long before food manufacturers are forced to adopt Vermont's labeling requirements nationwide just to maintain consistency in product labeling.

Finally, the efforts in Vermont may have ramifications for U.S. agriculture producers seeking market access around the world. Many of our major trading partners, including the European Union, have restricted U.S. food imports over GMO concerns or imposed requirements for labeling food products containing GMOs. Trade tensions over GMO policy have created a major hurdle in the negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a major pending trade agreement between the United States and Europe. Vermont's attempts to mandate GMO labeling may undercut the negotiating ability of the United States as our trade representatives seek to open export markets for American farmers.

Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have attempted to override the Vermont law, but Senate Democrats have blocked these efforts. Now, time is running out. Some conservatives have balked at the idea of more federal preemption and suggested instead that Vermont's residents be allowed to have costlier and more limited food options if they so choose. But what's at stake is much more than the welfare of 625,000 Vermonters. One state should not be permitted to impose a costly and misleading campaign on the residents of the other forty-nine states. The reality is that conservatives are down to two options: 1) do nothing, and allow a small, left-wing state's GMO labeling mandate to be adopted nationwide, or 2) support a smaller GMO disclosure requirement that will preserve the benefits of biotechnology and a grocery supply chain that has worked effectively for decades.

More than a quarter century ago, Boris Yeltsin recognized the advantages of competition, innovation, and free trade in the U.S. market for food. Today, Senator Bernie Sanders's state wants unlearn this lesson. But Congress still has the opportunity to intervene and ensure that the marketplace remains unencumbered.

 

Alex Brill is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as an adviser on tax policy to the President's Fiscal Commission, and is a former senior adviser and chief economist to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles