WASHINGTON — Traditionally, the government has mandated labeling standards to warn consumers of potential hazards, such as smoking’s link to cancer and lung disease, and a high-fat diet’s link to numerous medical problems.
Requiring the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods, on the other hand, is a solution in search of a problem.
Advocates of GM labeling cling to the naive fiction that genetically modified foods are foreign and untested — unnatural products of wild-eyed scientists. The reality is that most of what we eat has been scientifically improved in some way.
In fact, the labeling question was vigorously debated in the 1990s and it was determined that labeling of new GM products would be required only if the foods themselves posed a safety concern, not because they differed from more conventional products produced in the usual manner.
The first GM products were introduced in the United States around 1994; and by 1999, approximately 60 percent of all produce found in the typical grocery store was grown using GM seeds.
Today, 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries grow GM crops. And numerous studies continue to confirm the safety of such products.
U.S. regulators should not adopt costly labeling requirements just to satisfy scientific illiterates — or to show their solidarity with the heavy-handed regulators in Western Europe, who “manage” their agricultural policies as effectively as they manage their economies.
The European Union, to its discredit, has effectively placed a stranglehold on genetically modified and bio-fortified foods. But it’s paid a high price for its restrictive policies, reducing potential agricultural output by an estimated 440 million to 900 million Euros annually.
The EU also has chosen to forgo two other benefits of GM crops: the fact that less chemical pesticides and less mechanical cultivation are needed in their production — both of which have significant environmental benefits.
The United States, meanwhile, has reaped a windfall from Europe’s phobic myopia, as leading European companies, such as Syngenta and BASF, have shifted their GM research centers here.
In terms of health and safety, many people seem to have blinders on when it comes to food, assuming that conventionally produced foods by definition are wholesome and safe, while genomic varieties require extreme oversight.
Yet, virtually all of the food safety problems we have encountered in recent years can be traced to conventional farming, including unsafe feed practices for poultry, salmonella in eggs, dioxin-tainted beef, Listeria-infected yogurt and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (or mad cow disease), which continues to affect trade in cattle, sheep and goats and cost the lives of more than 150 people in the United Kingdom alone.
In fact, even the European Commission, following an independent review, concluded that, based on all available evidence, there is, as of today, no scientific research associating GMOs “with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”
Simply put, all agriculture is based on the creation of new and improved varieties. Whether they are developed through genetic engineering or otherwise, we rely on hybrids for our daily bread. New plant and animal varieties happen in nature as well — within and across species — without human intervention.
Medical treatment of bacterial infections with antibiotics, by contrast, directly interferes with nature. Do opponents of genetically modified products reject modern medicine as well?
GM labeling is a solution in search of a non-existent problem. It would be far better policy for companies to label the minority of products that appeal to anti-GM consumers than to try to implement mandatory GM labeling.
And by the way, for the conscientious consumer concerned with such matters, that is what they already do. Whole Foods, for example, has all but made an industry out of the practice.
• Finston, a former executive director of the American BioIndustry Alliance.
Comments (14)
Add commentIt really says something when
It really says something when two completely opposing sides can claim "fact" for two completely different results.
I trust mother nature over scientists on the topic of food anyday.
I also take offence with the
I also take offence with the illiterate comment. That's WHY there are labels on things, we want to know what we are putting in our bodies. Sorry bud, I won't trust anyone because they tell me too.
Isn't Frankenfish...
...considered a GMO product?
'GMO' is a pretty generic title. Some GMO is just fine. But other may have serious problems. If we're going to institute regulations and labeling, I think it will require a bit more nuance than black or white.
Costly labeling?
The cost won't be in the labeling requirements, it will be in the lost profits of Monsanto, BASF, and every other ag giant that put bottom lines ahead of safety. They're free to produce all the GMO product they want, we should be free to decide whether we eat it or not. Suggesting that the cost of labeling is reason enough not to do it is ludicrous and weak. If an article comes out touting the benefits of lycopene, every bottle of Heinz ketchup has the word lycopene on it the next day, how expensive is that really?
secret unknown information
Reading the article one might think the producers of these GMO products do not already have this information. Or are we to simply interpret the above as an indication the producers either don't know what they are producing or the don't want you to know.
Safety is more important than money
Also, sir, I don't care about the EU. I care about the USA. I want safe foods. And if it makes you feel better to call me "scientifically illiterate," fine. I find you to be "socially illiterate" if you don't think you come off as patronizing.
Go ahead and see if your daughters or granddaughters start growing breasts and menstruating at 7 years old after growing up on RBsT modified milk.
I choose to protect my family. So do MOST Americans, which is why all major grocery store chains choose dairy providers who use non-RBsT milk.
Why labeling is expensive -
Why labeling is expensive -
"The proposition (on California's ballot this fall) would increase the cost of food production, hurting low-income consumers. Ingredients would have to be tested for genetic modification, meaning the grower, processor, distributor, retailer and ultimately the consumer would be on the hook for the added cost. When a food company switches suppliers, as often occurs, new tests would be required, and the labels would have to be reprinted, further adding to the costs.
The proposition would also keep lawyers busy. Anyone could file a lawsuit against any food company without having to prove he was damaged if he believed a label was incorrect. If he wins, attorney fees and "all reasonable costs in investigating and prosecuting the case" may be awarded.
If they are successful, each of the 50 states could ultimately have different criteria for food labels, further driving up food prices."
Calypso
That makes sense, but why do low-income consumers need to shoulder the costs? Profits have increased due to GMO food production, couldn't the labeling come from those profits? We've already figured out how to effectively track and label organic foods, how much different is this? This anti-labeling campaign is just a smoke screen to mask the fact that many people don't want to eat GMO foods, and the corporations pushing this stuff would rather shove it down our throats and reap the profits then let us have a choice in what goes into our bodies.
Organic foods make up a much
Organic foods make up a much smaller portion of the market.
Who are we to say how companies should "use their profits"? That's silly talk.
What kinds of "profits" are food companies making anyway in this economy? I know I'm spending about 20% more at the grocery store lately.
All this GMO stuff is another agenda driven, progressive plan to vilify big corporations that the left perceives as evil. Reminds me of the movies that Michael Moore makes. Troublemakers...
profit driven propaganda from the bioindustry
Let's see... This piece was written by a former ED for the American BioIndustry Alliance. Big red flag, right there.
What was once a staple of most local, regional, or state economies -- agriculture, has now been aggregated into the hands of a few very large agribusinesses and their bioengineering friends at Mansanto, DuPont, etc (who happen to be the recipients of massive federal subsidies, and who also happen to do much of their banking overseas, which is convenient for them come April 15). Farming was formerly the most common occupation in the US, and local farms fed the nation just fine. Now agriculture is dominated by a few monoculture, profit-driven agribusinesses like ConAgra, General Mills, Cargill, etc. Rather than growing kale or spinach at home, we now depend on large corporations to ship kale or spinach 2,000 miles across the country so we can pay them to do so. We export approximately 1 billion pounds of potatoes every year, and we import about 1.4 billion pounds of potatoes every year. Does that make sense? I'll let you guess who benefits from that transaction. It's not the consumer...
The generation currently in high school is the first generation in America predicted NOT to outlive their parents. A large contributing factor? Nutrition, or lackthereof, related disease, i.e. diabetes, obesity, etc.
This article is another attempt to convince Americans that big business has the best interests of Americans at heart. In reality, the author of this article seems to have the interests of making fat pockets fatter at the expense of American nutrition. Do we really want to believe the rhetoric of an industry that aims to convince us that soy and corn syrup are reasonable substitutes to real food? Consumers deserve the right to know what they're eating. GMO's should be labeled. The attempt by Mansanto in Vermont, or in this case the American BioIndustry Alliance to ban GMO labeling has nothing to do with protecting the economy or Americans' well being. It has everything to do with protecting corporate bottom lines. Big surprise.
Calypso
Your comment illustrates a troubling trend in the social discourse of our day. Rather than debate the merits of this individual topic, you immediately draw a line in the sand and throw "progressives" on one side and big business on the other. You're right that agendas are in play here: big business wants to make big profits, and there's nothing wrong or evil about that. The "progressives" have serious qualms about the safety of GMO products, so they're pushing back, not to vanquish GMOs or big biz, just to give consumers the freedom to choose. Next, enter Susan K. Finston who decides to muddy the waters, spin the facts, present weak arguments with the hope that her thinly veiled sarcasm will succeed where her social illiteracy has failed, and pit average Americans against each other while a handful of fat cats laugh their way to the bank. Was it silly talk to suggest that BP use their profits to clean up the gulf?
Perhaps we should just assume that all commercial foods are GMO?
I do not think you can find a soy bean in the US that is not GMO?
I am sure that there are many others. So maybe have a voluntary label that insures that the product is not GMO modified?
If there is no label, safe to assume that it is Genetically modified.
I have a personal interest in tomatoes. I am mostly concerned about the monoculture of our vegetables. Ever eat a commercial tomato in Juneau? Most of them look great but taste a bit like cardboard. Mostly tough skinned. Selection was to look good, ship good and not spoil. Taste and texture do not seem to be part of the equation.
Warning: Contact with an heirloom tomato can possibly cause severe and irreversible pleasure.
Check this site in France:
http://ventmarin.free.fr/passion_tomates/passion_tomate.htm
They list nearly 13,000 heirloom tomato varieties that are grown commercially. Problem is that they have to be close to the market when they sell.
That is just one site. There are several sites in the US with 100 to 800 varieties of heirloom tomatoes.
As any of you might guess, growing tomatoes in Juneau can be a challenge. Some years are not so good.
too many hicks
There are too many illiterates in this country...of all kinds. And we have two illiterates in Congress, not counting Don Young. Both of our senators have latched onto the "frankenfish" nonsense, sounding like a couple of real hicks.
@merryprankster - right back
@merryprankster - right back at ya. It's only a "line in the sand" when my opinion differs from yours.
The progressive "line" is just okay, right?
Come on - you can do better than that with your argument.