What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

How many times do we check online reviews of a product before choosing to buy it? Reviews are important for many consumers to make sure they are spending their money on something that is of good quality. But can companies really sue customers for posting a negative review of a product on an online forum?

After posting a negative Amazon review of a Mediabridge brand router, a Florida man recently received a letter from Mediabridge’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit. The company claimed that the review contained false information intended to hurt its reputation and that the man’s statements could be considered slanderous. The company went on to warn that it would sue the man unless he removed his review, stopped purchasing Mediabridge products, and ceased future discussion of the company on the internet.

Can companies really sue individuals over their negative reviews on the internet?

Legal precedent works in favor of the companies. For example, Virginia courts heard a case in 2012 of a similar issue on Yelp and Angie’s List. A retired military captain living in Fairfax County posted a negative review of a contracting service on Yelp and Angie’s List claiming that not only was the service poor, but also that she was billed for services that weren’t performed, and the contractor may have also stolen jewelry. The contractor, Christopher Dietz, sued her for $750,000 for defamatory remarks on an internet review site. Dietz argued that the reviewer’s statements were false and that her negative review impacted his business and reputation. The court held for the contractor. The case was later overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.

How could this affect consumers?

Providing real insight into the quality of goods and services is the purpose of consumer reviews. It is helpful to read positive reviews in order to make a wise purchase, but negative reviews are also important to warn others of faulty products and poor service. If consumers realize that they can be sued over their critical comments about products, however, many may not be truthful or even write reviews at all anymore. Consumers have a right to know information about the quality of a good o service before they spend their money, but if people are deterred from sharing this information for fear they may create legal trouble for themselves it will become much harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Can consumer reviews be protected?

Companies like Amazon need to step up to protect their customers. According to Amazon’s terms of use, product sellers are not allowed to demand consumers remove their reviews. These terms are there for a reason: Amazon wants customers to freely critique the items they have purchased through the site. If companies threaten customers with lawsuits over negative reviews, then Amazon needs to step in.

—

Sarah Helden (@SHelden430)

[National Journal] [TIME] [Amazon]

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Reviewers Beware: Negative Product Reviews Might Cost You appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, an uproar over General Mills’ new legal terms caused a great deal of commotion, so much so that the company reversed the changes within a few days. While things have calmed down, it is nevertheless important to examine what could have been a dangerous change to consumer legal rights. 

General Mills, a major company in the food industry, recently underwent a change in its legal terms on Thursday, April 17. The affect the changes had on consumers was extremely unfair.  Under the new legal terms of General Mills, consumers that interact with the company in ways such as downloading a coupon from a website, joining their group on Facebook, enter a sweepstakes, or other such actions would have to give up their right to sue the company. Instead, costumers would be forced to solve their disputes with the company through arbitration or negotiation. Clever, right?

When asked to comment about the new policy, General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas noted that buying a General Mills product or ‘liking’ one of the company’s pages on Facebook would not bar an individual from suing. However, he did note that if someone liked a page in order to download a coupon, that action would constitute as ‘joining the General Mills online community’ and the right to sue would be forfeited.

Thankfully, the added language to General Mills’ legal terms evoked a strong response from consumers of the company’s brands. People took to the internet to protest the changes, and their efforts did not go without notice. It only took a few days for General Mills to revert back to their old legal terms and issuing an apology about the changes to consumers‘ rights.

If these changes were so unpopular, what could have prompted the company to issue new legal terms in the first place?

Recently, General Mills had to pay large sums of money for losses in legal suits. For example, the company paid a sum of 8.5 million dollars over a lawsuit involving the Yoplait brand’s product Yoplus. In response, the company tried to prevent other cases by preventing many of its consumers from being able to sue. The tactic here, called ‘forced arbitration,’ aims to minimize the costs of legal action taken against a company. If the General Mills’ legal changes had stayed in place, the policy would have prevented many consumers from filing suit against the company in court. Those who took such actions that would prevent them from suing under the policy would have had to enter into arbitration to settle their claim. Under forced arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and so consumers would have also lost any chance of appeal. Moreover, under forced arbitration, individuals are not permitted to sue, enter into a class action law suit, or appeal any decision that has been reached.

It is fortunate that General Mills decided to rescind their new legal changes; however, the example is but one among many actions companies that have taken to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. While it is important to note that the voice of angry consumers can evoke changes in company policies, there are other laws and policies in effect that limit consumer legal rights.

In 2008, a Whataburger in Texas placed a sign on their window saying that once customers entered, they forfeit the right to sue the company. While this is perhaps an extreme example, there are many other companies that contain clauses in their legal terms that prevent customers from suing and entering into class action lawsuits. Public Citizen, a consumer advocate non-profit, lists on their website companies that contain such clauses in their legal terms. Among the many corporations are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Wells Fargo, American Express, Dell, Toshiba, Starbucks, Netflix, and the list continues.

It is alarming that there are so many companies operating in this country that contain provisions in their legal terms that basically prevent consumers from exercising their rights. When consumers enter into forced arbitration with these companies to settle claims, they are placed into binding agreements with arbitrators who usually take the company’s side.

Non-profits such as Public Citizen can only do so much to counter the tactics of large corporations. That is why it is encouraging that the response from angry consumers forced General Mills to back down on its new legal policy. The fact that so many people were outraged over the changes caused the company to realize that these legal changes could have resulted in a loss of many consumers. This example shows that consumers do have power to fight back against unfair legal policies. If people continue to band together and withhold business from companies with such policies, other changes could be forthcoming.

[New York Times] [The Atlantic] [NACA] [CNN Money] [Public Citizen]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [ GeneralMills via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A Worrisome Precendent for Consumer Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.