GMO Labeling

The election's over, so this is temporarily a non-issue. But it's sure to keep coming back. I've been thinking about it a bit, partly because people who I respect came down on the other side of the issue.

I voted "no" on prop 37 in California. Mainly that's because I think it was motivated by scare-mongering by a small cohort who got funding from the "natural food" industry, which saw it as a way to increase market share. I think the science is pretty clear - that GMO foods are not different from non-GMO foods in ways that are even remotely likely to affect nutrition or health. The variation in products of conventional breeding is far larger, less controlled, and, unlike GMOs, not subject to any regulatory approval process. Mark Bittman, who advocated for prop 37 in several columns, agreed on the science in his last one.

But the science is neither here nor there. Some people have what Marion Nestle refers to as values-based reasons for not wanting to consume GMOs - a variety of concerns related to corporate control of the food supply and how GMOs affect the agricultural economy. Bittman falls into that camp, as does Michael Pollan. Whether they're right or wrong is not the point. Arguments about values are generally thought impolite and anyway are usually fruitless.

I have no issue with this values-based desire to know which products contain GMOs. I might even agree with some of the values. But here's the thing: there are lots of other values-based consumption decisions that people make, and there are very few where the government steps in with a labeling mandate. The only one I can think of is country of origin on clothing, and that almost surely started with demands from the US garment industry. So it's really a result of special favors for industry, not a groundswell of values-based consumer demand.

Where there is a lot of demand for values-based labels, what usually happens is that private certification processes spring up. A few obvious examples are kosher products, organic foods and vegan processed foods. Also "Made in America" on manufactured items, thought I doubt there's any actual certification organization. And, by the way, there's already a private certification organization for GMO-free food. So my question to the pro-labeling camp is, why isn't this adequate? Private certification and labeling allows you to get your values-based outcome while leaving me free to ignore the issue and, more importantly, not pay higher costs coming from your values, which I might not share. Imposing your values (such as  your religious beliefs) on others, particularly if they are costly, is usually not considered fair.

Judging from comments on some blogs, some pro-mandatory-labeling folks just don't want to pay that cost - or rather, they want the cost to be spread over all consumers, not just them. Well, that doesn't seem like a very good argument. Most of the "no" campaign's ads prominently mentioned the additional cost, and it's a safe bet that that was focus-group tested. If the pro-labeling camp is going to get some version of what they want, I think they're going to have to confront squarely the fact that for most people, "your values don't justify imposing a cost on me".

Gerrymandering

The national vote for Democratic congressmen was 51%, vs. 49% for the GOP, essentially matching the Obama-Romney outcome. But the new Congress has only one or two fewer GOP seats than the last one, and they still have a substantial majority. That's the result of the clever redistricting done by GOP-controlled legislatures in 2000 and 2010. (And some off-cycle shenanigans in Texas, if I remember right.)

This figure shows just how well that worked. The blue and red bars are histograms of the district level votes, blue for Dem & red for GOP, natch, showing the fraction of districts with given vote margin, grouped by 5% bins. The GOP peaks at center right are in the 55-60% and 60-65% ranges, where they crafted districts of safe but not concentrated seats. The buckets at 65% and higher are all strongly blue dominated - those are the districts set up to hold the resulting "excess" of Dem. voters.

There's only one way to fix this (short of armed insurrection). Get Democratic control of more state legislatures (difficult because of the gerrymandering) and governorships (less difficult because those are statewide offices). Then turn the tables.