Of all the places one might expect to find a hotbed of opposition to a GMO labeling initiative, the Denver Urban Homesteading market would be an improbable choice.
After all, this is a shop that prides itself on handcrafted food and locally grown vegetables, most of them organic.
But owner James Bertini says the Colorado Right to Know initiative, which appears likely to make the November ballot, forces the same heavy-handed regulation on small markets like his as it would on mega-grocery chains. He says he can’t afford it.
As it turns out, the intentional flexibility of this initiative is a double-edged sword.
Proponents say they they have no desire to include mom-and-pop operations in the regulations, which would require labeling that says whether genetically engineered ingredients are in the food. This, they say, will be addressed in the rule-making process if the measure passes.
It’s this flexibility that supporters see as a strength. It means experts can craft rules and exemptions after public input.
But this flexibility looks like uncertainty to Bertini, who says the initiative as written would force him to label many of the goods that line the wood shelves in his small market.
“I think labeling is a good idea, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to include small markets in that law,” he told me. “We’d have to hire an extra person to do all the labeling.”
Bertini, who is a lawyer, has scrutinized the initiative and believes that as written, it will force him, for instance, to label the fresh pasta he buys in bulk from a Denver producer and packages for individual sale.
The honey from boutique apiaries might also need labels, he said. And he’s just not sure about the grass-fed beef, raised on a ranch outside Denver.
The law also includes a criminal penalty, and that is of particular concern to Bertini.
“It bothers me that I could make a mistake on labeling a product that a farmer brings in here and I commit a misdemeanor,” he said.
The irony is that those pushing the GMO labeling initiative are philosophical soul mates with people like Bertini.
“Our intention surely was to support local farmers, to support local food and do everything we can to help people know what’s in their food,” Larry Cooper, a proponent, told me.
Others have raised questions about the measure as well. Mark Grueskin, a lawyer representing interests opposed to the measure, said he thinks marijuana edibles will be required to have labels saying whether genetically engineered ingredients were used.
“They may not have reliable THC levels, but buyers are going to know whether the corn syrup that went into the brownie was genetically modified,” he said.
While the full ramifications of the initiative remain to be seen, its prospects of passage are less murky.
Rick Ridder, a political consultant working to pass the measure, recently conducted a poll that showed 75 percent of registered Colorado voters favor mandatory GMO labeling.
He believes signature gatherers, most of them volunteers, will easily collect the 87,000 valid signatures required by Aug. 4 to get the question on the ballot.
And it’s not just Colorado where the issue is gaining ground. GMO labeling initiatives are sweeping the country, with 35 bills having been introduced this year in 20 states, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Given the groundswell of interest in how the genetic makeup of food is altered, it seems a pretty safe bet that labeling will be required in Colorado, whether it’s via this measure or another.
But the details of how such requirements play out seem certain to create friction, and perhaps even cause friends to become enemies.
E-mail Alicia Caldwell at acaldwell@denverpost.com or follow her on Twitter: @AliciaMCaldwell
