Once upon a time, conservatives were quick to denounce federal power grabs at the expense of the states. Bob Dole even said that he carried a copy of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment in his pocket — that amendment being the one protecting the states’ reserve powers.
Sometimes, states’ rights took on ugly racial overtones. The 1960s-era rallies against federal overreach were really directed at blocking federal efforts to end segregation in the South, and later at racially-charged controversies like court-ordered school desegregation.
Yet the issue is not just about race. For example, conservatives today still denounce certain federal agencies, none more so than the Environmental Protection Agency, as treading on territory that rightly belongs to state governments.
Then again, times change. The conservative case for less federal power over states rests on the assumption that the states will have lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a more pro-industry climate. Today, states with liberal policymaking majorities often pass laws going well beyond federal regulations. California has done this for years with auto emissions. Oregon recently banned hydrologic fracturing, or “fracking,” for oil and gas, and also pledged to phase out the use of coal for electricity by 2030. Now comes Vermont’s new food labeling law, and Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Pat Roberts are none too happy about it.
Set to take effect July 1, Vermont’s law would be the first in the nation requiring the labeling of food containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs, or bioengineered foods). Larger states like California may follow suit. Pompeo and Roberts have led the efforts in the House and Senate, respectively, to preempt the Vermont law. Pompeo got the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” passed in the House, but it failed in the Senate. Nicknamed the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” (DARK) act by opponents, the federal legislation relies on the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause, the basis of federal regulatory power since the 1930s.
Most GMO ingredients are either modified to produce their own insecticide, as with cotton and corn, or to resist herbicides and insecticides sprayed on them, as with soybeans and again with corn. A new report on the topic by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine found exaggerated claims on both sides of the controversy. GMOs are not miracle crops, having had little impact on the annual increases in crop yields.
But the researchers also found no evidence of increases in cancer and other illnesses among the general public due to the consumption of GMO foods. Activists continue to object. For example, one study found that genetically engineered soybeans had lower nutritional content and more herbicide glyphosate — aka Monsanto’s Roundup — in the food after processing. The study compared GMO soybeans to those raised conventionally and also to organic soybeans.
The proposed legislation would still allow voluntary or state-regulated labeling of foods that do not contain GMO/bioengineered ingredients. Instead, the issue is whether food that does contain GMOs should be labeled. Pompeo, Roberts, Monsanto and their allies fear that these labels will needlessly scare consumers. Critics counter that they have a right to know what is in their food. The legislation passed the House and died in the Senate but Roberts, Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is said to be in informal talks to revive the bill before July 1.
Critics charge Roberts and Pompeo with selling out to Monsanto, but that may not be fair. Conservatives have long advocated limiting government regulation over the private sector. The question is, what happened to another goal—limiting federal interference with the state governments?
To respond effectively to critics, these two Kansas legislators need to better-define their conservatism.
Michael A. Smith is a Professor of Political Science at Emporia State University.