{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02011313639220616, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.21875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The New Imperialism: Toward an Advocacy Strategy for GMO Accountability

Contamination of purportedly non-GMO seed stocks and harvests with GMOs is a uniquely troubling form of commingling of different agricultural products: It introduces substances into foreign countries’ food and feed supplies that have not yet been fully researched, debated, and regulated through those sovereigns’ domestic political processes. One significant challenge to efforts to reform U.S. GMO policy has been the tendency to define the harm from unregulated GMO contamination by focusing on environmental or health effects, which are often dismissed as speculative, or on economic harms to sellers to non-GMO markets, which can be dismissed by advocating for higher threshold tolerance levels. Framing the argument instead as a matter of political harm to foreign sovereigns has several potential advantages. First, the harm is actual, not speculative; GMO contamination has already had a material impact on GMO regulatory policy in countries like Brazil. Second, the U.S. is a party to relevant international treaties and declarations that could form a basis for protection of the political right of self-determination, principally through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Third, the argument suggests why the controversy over GMO policy is so heated - at stake is not merely the right to consume or not consume GMOs, but the very right of a people to make its own cultural decisions, free from foreign domination.