November 25th, 2015

Brianna Grosso, Stephanie Shaw, Cheyenne Tate, Mitch Mrozik

Genesse County
HR 1599 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling
Representative Mike Pompeo

This bill is trying to inform consumers on GMO products by adding the GMO content to
the products label. This would be of interest to the audience to educate them on the foods that
they are consuming. However, would this be an actual desire for the consumer? If the consumer
is undereducated on GMOs is this bill actually beneficial? This and more is addressed in the
testimony letter to Representative Mike Pompeo.
 Teamwork Paragraph:
In order to complete this assignment we really optimized in-class recitation time along with
GoogleDocs. Each individual played to their strengths when choosing direct tasks that they
would be held responsible for and oversee, although in most circumstances the whole team
offered contributions. By optimizing the GoogleDoc we were able to see our progress as a group
and offer assistance. Ultimately, Stephanie was responsible for solidifying our primary sources,
properly formatting them and drafting the testimony letter. Brianna drafted the cover page, the
oral presentation and solidified our three main points to cover. Mitch conducted the interviews
necessary, along with developing our position and proofreading the final testimony. Cheyenne
was responsible for the summary page, determining the reading level and providing the
teamwork paragraph.
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives by Republican Mike Pompeo on March 25, 2015. The bill was then amended by
the Committee on Agriculture on July 16, 2015 and an additional supplemental report was filed
by the Committee on Agriculture before the bill ultimately was passed in the House on July 23.
The bill was then received in the Senate. Currently, it has been read twice and has been referred
to the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
Our group took an opposing stance to this bill. We believe that it would create more
confusion than clarity. The reasons for our opposition are as follows: the bill would be costly,
would confuse and potentially produce unintended alarm in consumers, and would cause a
decrease in jobs and research in the field.
In support of our first reason, we discovered the estimated cost of passing this bill to the
United States, which was approximately $4 million dollars from the years 2016 to 2020.1source
Furthermore, a study conducted by Cornell University economists shows mandatory GMO
labeling would cost each family $500 per year. source The burden on farmers would be even
more substantial, due to new costs of establishing new methods of separation and storage of
GMOs from conventional varieties, along with establishing separate supply changes for
GMOS.1 Additionally, the FDAs Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition cited that
enforcing a labeling requirement would increase the cost of these foods to consumers as part of
the reasoning behind opposing labeling requirements for GM foods.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022597000385#bib39)
Further research affirmed the FDAs decision stating that in regards to GM foods, it is the method
of manufacture that differs from a non-GM food- not the nutritional content. The agency cited
the substantial equivalence principle, which explains how GM and non-GM foods of the same
variety are virtually undistinguishable.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022597000385#bib39)
The basis for our conclusion that labeling of genetically modified foods would confuse
consumers was derived from the results of several research studies analyzing overall consumer
understanding and perception of GM foods. Updated labeling would not inform a client of any
new information regarding the safety of the food, it simply would be an additional detail in
regards to how it was manufactured. Yet due to lack of public knowledge and education, the
public may believe the label was providing information on the nutrition or safety of the food.
Additionally, marketing campaigns have seized opportunities to take advantage of
the publics lack of knowledge on GM foods. Labeling efforts to mark food items incapable of
undergoing GM technology as GMO-free have been unsettlingly effective at increasing sales.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779914002327)
Furthermore, initiatives to pass legislation similar to the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling have been brought to vote in states such as California, Washington and Oregon and
were all unsuccessful.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022597000385#bib39)
One of these initiatives, Proposition 37, in California on two occasions was not passed by
voters, and the second initiative of this bill proved to be the most expensive ballot measure in
state history.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022597000385#bib39) This
displays a lack of demand for GMO labeling. There is no public outcry, and therefore any
negative aspects of the bill should count even more so, due to the public generally being opposed
or indifferent to the bill. Money, time and resources should be placed in bills which a strong
public demand exists.
The United States currently possesses 70.1 million hectares of commercial GM crops,
making it the global leader in production of GM plants. Furthermore, evidence from the
European Union, which does require GMO labeling on foods, has demonstrated that doing so
leads to decrease in employment and research in the GM and biotech field. If a similar result
occurred in the United States, this would be impedingly detrimental to the economy.
(Twardowski, T., Malyska A. Uninformed and Disinformed Society and the GMO Market.
Trends in Biotechnology. 2015; 33 (1):1-3 )
We were unable to contact our legislator for his opinion. (right ??) However we were
capable of gaining insight from the community on the issue. A physiology professor at Michigan
State University, Professor Dillion when asked if would purchase a product solely based on
whether it was labled as GMO or non-GMO stated it would have no influence. Professor Dillion
went on to offer a more physiological explanation behind his reasoning. He stated that evolution
does the same process of what a GMO does. The body still operates fine consuming GMOs. the
acidity of the stomach is a pH of 1.2 GMO or not nothing survives; and pertaining to the body-
whether the energy source it is consuming is GMO or not the body does not care. This insight
from Professor Dillion, aligns exactly with the FDAs stance and the substantial equivalence
principle. A similar opinion was obtained when the question was asked to a plant scientist, Casey
Johnny. Johnny also said the inclusion of GMO or non-GMO would have no bearing on their
purchase due to their understanding of the extensive approval process a GMO must undergo.
Johnny also stated their belief GMO and conventional food are nutritionally equivalent. The
opinions of Johnny and Dillion directly differed from those of Brittany Priesler, a college
student. Prieslers responses clearly indicate that the general public possesses a largely skewed
and misinformed perception on GMO foods. When asked if she was aware of what a GMO food
was she said not really, but knew it was something negative. Additionally, she stated she would
not purchase a GMO food if it was labeled due to the belief that those products contain added
hormones and the cancer causing plastic agent. Priesler was also asked if the issue of food
labeling was something she felt passionate about altering and said she had not ever contemplated
the idea prior to the interview. However, she was in support of passing the bill and believed it
granted society knowledge they deserve to know.
Professor Dillion and Johnny were both opposed to the passing of the bill, citing beliefs
that the doing so would be a waste of money and effort due to the lack of risk GMO foods
provide. They suggested that time and capital should be steered toward more impeding health
risks and issues such as cigarette usage and effects, water quality, and air quality. Also, that in a
community where the issue of GMO is highly controversial, labeling GMO may cause more
harm than good.
These interviews and vast difference in opinions of what we would label as the informed
community versus the general public, coalign with our consensus that the Safe and Accurate
Food Labeling Bill would simply cause more confusion than clarity.

November 12, 2015

Representative Mike Pompeo
7701 E. Kellogg, Suite 510
Wichita, KS 67207

Dear Representative Pompeo:

Our names are Brianna Grosso, Cheyenne Tate, Stephanie Shaw, and Mitch Mrozik and we
are a group of Dietetics students from Michigan State University. We are writing to you in
regards to the bill you have sponsored H.R. 1599: Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. As
future dietitians we are not in support of this bill. We believe this bill would create more
problems than solutions. Our reasons for not supporting this bill are as follows: first, a
component of the bill is to add GMO labeling to the current food labels, which would be
costly. Secondly, the general public will be confused and might show concern with this new
labeling. Lastly, there is evidence from the European Union that this has led to decrease in
employment and research.

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act would be a costly venture if implemented in the
U.S. Passing of this bill would cost the United States of America about $4 million dollars
from the years 2016 to 2020.1 Although this may not seem like a lot in terms of government
spending, it is a good amount of money that could be better well spend on other important
causes. A farmer himself, Bo Stone (who operates P&S Farms) does not support
mandatory GMO labeling due to the cost. A study done by Cornell University economists
shows mandatory GMO labeling would cost each family $500 per year. And personally for
famers, the cost of setting up a network, separating and storing GMOs from conventional
varieties and establishing different supply changes for GMOs will be burdensome. 2

Secondly, the general public will be confused and might show concern with this new
labeling. Labeling is a very important part of sales and influence consumers decision
making when purchasing food. Ingredients help consumers make decisions regarding their
health. In the case of genetically modified food labeling concerns a method of
manufacture, the product and ingredients remain essentially unchanged.3 Adding GMO
to a food label will not inform the client of any new information regarding the safety of the
food. It would be addition detail in regards to how it manufactured. However due to lack
of public knowledge and education of this the public may believe the label was providing
information on the nutrition and safety of the food. There was research conducted in the
United States showing that generally Americans do not want GMO foods labeled. In
California on November 6, 2012, Proposition 37, aimed at enforcing labeling of genetically
engineered foods, was struck down. On the second occasion of such a decision on
November 5th, 2013, voters from DC decided that foods produced through genetic
engineering do not need mandatory labeling. 3 Therefore there is no public outcry for this
new act of labeling as the public was generally opposed or indifferent to the bill. Money,
time, and resources should be placed in bills which a strong public demand exists.

Lastly, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act has shown to decrease employment and
research. The European Union has experienced this phenomenon personally. The EU
public has opposed GMO as well as some of the government leading to Biotech companies
reducing their personnel in the EU and moved research and applied activities from the EU
to other regions.4 In other words, the public rejection (reason number 2 for opposing this
bill) has affected the economy of Europe. It led to loss of jobs and a decline in research
across the country. This situation negatively affects commercialization of safe and
innovative GMOs resulting in disadvantages for the farmers. We feel that with the
negative public reaction to this, similar things will happen here in the United States. We
are just rebounding from a recession now, and would hate to see the economy take another
downturn due to lack of purchasing of goods and lack of jobs available.

As a Representative we ask that you reconsider your backing of the H.R. 1599: Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. As undergraduate dietetics students we do not see a
large problem with GMOs however we understand that the majority of the U.S.
population does lack education on this process. Therefore passing this bill will create more
controversy over the topic of GMOs rather than help any cause. We believe that this bill
should be reconsidered for the better of the U.S. economy and population. Thank you for
taking the time to consider our concerns.

Sincerely,

Brianna Grosso, Cheyenne Tate, Mitch Mrozik, Stephanie Shaw

References
1. Hart J. GMO labeling: Advocates like transparency, opponents dislike the cost.
Southeast Farm Press. 2014. http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1637438235?accountid=12598.
2. H.R. 1599, Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. Congressional Budget
Office Website. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-
2016/costestimate/hr1599_0.pdf. Published July 16, 2015. Accessed November 18, 2015.
3. Twardowski, T., Malyska A. Uninformed and Disinformed Society and the GMO
Market. Trends in Biotechnology. 2015; 33 (1):1-3. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.11.006
4. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural
%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Paris_EU-27_8-3-2012.pdf EU article though?

Interview questions:

1. Do you know what a GMO is?

2. Would you purchase a product solely based on if it was labeled GMO or not?
3. Are topics concerning GMOs an interest to you?
4. Do you think non-GMO foods are marketed as a safer alternative?
5. Is knowing if a product is labeled GMO a concern to your right to know?
6. Do you think a bill of this size will have an effect on your local community?
7. Would you support this bill?

Breezy Piesler - student

Not really? Its something thats bad, right?
1. No, because they have added hormones and have the cancer causing plastic agent.- my
favorite response of hers.
2. Ive never really thought about it, except from the news Ive seen on T.V
3. Yes, because they dont have the fake materials in them
 4. I hadnt really thought about it until you asked me
5. Yes
6. Yes I think its something everyone should know

Professor Dillion, my physiology professor

1. Yes, of course he says.
2. No influence, everything is GMO related. He stated that evolution does the same process of
what a GMO does/is. The body still operates fine consuming GMOs. the acidity of the
stomach is a pH of 1.2 GMO or not nothing survives.
This bill is a waste of money and effort. it discusses small risks and there are better things to look at
such as cigarette usage and effects, water quality, and air quality. GMOs pose no large risk.

Pertaining to the body its doesnt care if its GMO or not.

Tempest in a teapot, You can quote me on that.

Does NOT support this bill.

Jake Worst-
1. yes
2. no, because most food is modified already
Against the bill because of too much federal regulation and unnecessary spending of
government dollars.
Now days everyone has a cell phone and/or easy access to the internet where they can look
up if an item is GMO or not.
It has little influence on if he would buy or not because most products contain GMOs
already.
Qualifications for GMOs? loopholes? theres too much that would have to be looked at for
it to be successful.
Is anything even organic anymore?

Casey Johnny - Plant scientist

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes, I am a plant scientist.
4. I think that the marketing have made it seems like organic foods are much safer than food
containing GMO
5. No, I understand how the process of approving GMO is very extensive, and believe that
GMO and conventional food are nutritionally equivalent.
6. I think that in a community where the issue of GMO is highly controversial, labeling GMO
may cause more harm than good.
7. No
http://pus.sagepub.com/content/18/1/103.long

Todt O, Munos E, Gonzalez M, Ponce G and Estevez B. Consumer attitudes and the
governance of safety. In: Public Understanding of Science 18 2009: 103114.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01677799140
02327

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09637486.2014.986072
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128022597000385

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224413000101

Testimony Progress:
1. Consumers' Perceptions Toward Usefulness of Genetically Modified Foods: A
Study of Select Consumers in USA study showed public support toward
biotechnology is significant and they should accept the usefulness of
biotechnology for a better future.
Puduri V, Govindasamy R, Nettimi N. Consumers' Perceptions Toward Usefulness of
Genetically Modified Foods: A Study of Select Consumers in USA. IUP Journal of
Agricultural Economics [serial online]. July 2010; 7(3): 7-17. Available from: ProQuest with
Full Text, Accessed November 5, 2015.
2. Consumer attitudes and the governance of safety Public perception of food safety
using GMOs as an indicator.
Todt O, Munos E, Gonzalez M, Ponce G and Estevez B. Consumer attitudes and the
governance of safety. Public Understanding of Science. 2009; 18(1): 103114.
doi:10.1177/0963662507078019
3. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agriculture and Food Biotechnology position of
the ADA is supportive of agriculture and food biotechnology techniques. The ADA encourages
government and food professionals to inform consumers about new technology and encourage the
availability of these products
Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural
and Food Biotechnology. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association. 2006; 106( 2): 285 293. doi:
10.1016/j.jada.2005.12.017
Twardowski, T., Malyska A. Uninformed and Disinformed Society and the GMO Market. Trends in
Biotechnology. 2015; 33 (1):1-3

FEEDBACK:
Nice job in getting sources into AMA format. You can a broad bill and I agree that you focus on
one aspect (such as GMO) to keep this managable.
I am concerned with the ADA Position paper since it is nearly 10 years old and according to the
AND website it is expired.
Good luck.

Task Who is Responsible

Draft Bill summary Cheyenne

Find primary source Stephanie

references and popular
references

Interview Mitch
legislators/community
regarding bill and their position

Develop group position on bill Mitch

Determine three main points Brianna

on bills to highlight in letter

Determine reading level of Cheyenne

letter and position

Draft testimony letter Stephanie

Proofread testimony letter Mitch

Format references Stephanie

Draft cover page for Brianna

assignment

Create oral presentation slides Brianna

Teamwork paragraph Cheyenne