It is safe to assume that we all agree that sound science, or rather good science, should be the basis for decisions— whether those be medical, engineering, biological, or agricultural, etc. But the use of the term “sound science” has enough history that the term now carries some hefty negative implications.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy and others, the term “sound science” has no specific definition, but is used subjectively. “”Sound science” is not a synonym of “good science” practices,” they write in Source Watch, “ but rather it is an ideological policy statement more about the criteria for the use of science in policy making. It is invoked mostly to call into question the validity of a given study or scientific statement.”

Sound science, they explain, is a phrase often used by corporate public relations and government agency spokesmen to describe the scientific research used to justify a claim or position. Sound science advocates are not interested in ‘good science’, objectivity, or even ‘sound’ science practices, but in politicizing science to support.”

The Kansas House, though, recently invoked “sound science” in House Resolution 6045, which slipped through the Legislature just before the regular session adjourned in late March. House Resolution 6045 supports the use of sound science to study and regulate modern agricultural technologies such as crop protection chemistries, and genetically engineered or enhanced traits and nutrients.

The resolution states that the Ks. House opposes legislation or regulatory action at any level that may result in unnecessary restrictions on the use of modern agricultural technologies.

The intent of the resolution is clear: the Kansas House is on record supporting genetically engineered crops and products. “Unnecessary restrictions” would likely mean no mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, and opposition to any future attempts to impact the unrestrained growth and development of such technologies.

Use of the term “ sound science” in HR 6045 assumes that anyone who expresses concerns about genetically modified crops or products, or indeed asks any questions about “modern agricultural practices” or the impacts on the environment or health, is relying on “unsound” science as their knowledge base. There also appears to be an assumption about “modern agricultural practices.” Is anything other than genetically modified or enhanced crop research considered modern by the resolution’s authors?

Since the advent of “tobacco science” in the 1960s and ‘70s, that deliberately kept the public misinformed about the dangers to health of smoking, the public has been understandably skeptical about scientific claims. Who does the research? Who pays for it? Who determines what information is released? And who benefits? These are all questions of critical importance that impact the answers we get.

While HR 6045 does not specifically mention GMO labeling, it appeared before the Kansas Legislature about the same time that U.S. Senator Roberts was beat back on his controversial GMO Labeling bill in D.C. Senator Roberts’ bill would have pre-empted state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMO food and farm products and establish a national voluntary labeling law.

Roberts’ bill, as well as its predecessor that passed the U.S. House in July 2015 (H.R. 1559), is a response to the groundswell of state bills asking for mandatory labeling of GMO’s in products, and the increasing support among consumers for labeling. Studies indicate that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling for GMOs in their food.

HR 1559, known as the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) was also introduced by a Kansan, Rep. Pompeo. This bill preempts state mandatory labeling laws such as the one passed and to take effect July 1 in Vermont. Only two other states — Connecticut and Maine — have passed GMO labeling laws to date, although bills have been introduced in 30 some states.

The Roberts and Pompeo efforts have the support of Big Ag and Big Food companies, including the seed and input supply corporations like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, etc. But recently big food companies like Campbell’s, General Mills, and Mars have announced they will voluntarily label their products as containing GMO’s, and more companies are following suit as they listen to consumer concerns. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries around the globe that do not require mandatory labeling, or prohibit/restrict the growth of genetically modified crops and products.

GMO labeling is seen as a shot across the bow that at worst could take down or at least hamper the entire industrial agricultural system now dependent upon GMO technologies and inputs. Skeptics and opponents see it as consumer protection and an opportunity for farmers and consumers to regain independence and autonomy from a system rigged toward purchase of specific inputs and and products to benefit corporate profits.

GMO supporters trot out the “we must feed the world” argument. But skeptics and opponents to unrestrained GMO’s point to the questions emerging about the unknown ramifications on soil and crop health of year after year of GMO seeds and herbicide inputs, and the unknown long term human health impacts of consumption of food and products containing GMO’s.

Farmer adopt technologies because they think they will enhance production, convenience and profitability. Farmers shift practices when these are no longer served. Rumblings of dissatisfaction among farmers are growing louder, as weed resistance, less than expected yields, soil health issues, and costs outweighing the benefits pile up. The Organic and Non-GMO Reporter recently reported that demand for non-GMO grains inter-nationally is soaring, and that non-GMO is the fastest growing label claim. KRC receives calls from farmers in search of non-GMO seed. Major grain companies like General Mills and Ardent Mills and a host of others are actively working to increase organic acreage to fulfill product demand as well.

Farmers learned a long time ago of the dangers of putting all your eggs in one basket. The attention on GMO labeling represents a call for “good science” and presents an opportunity for another basket—for investment in science that includes a broader definition of modern agricultural practices—one that researches non-GMO alternatives and organic options, enhances diversity, and cultivates ecological and biological solutions.

While resolutions like Kansas’ HR 6045 do not carry the weight of law, they do set a stake in the ground in case anyone gets any ideas about GMO labeling in Kansas, or asking any other questions that might shake up the assumptions about the best future direction for agriculture and food production.

We are at best forewarned of what to expect—at least from the current set of Legislators.

Mary Fund is Executive Director of the Kansas Rural Center. [email protected]