http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/27/149474012/activists-say-americans-support-labeling-genetically-modified-food#more
According to a survey by the coalition "Just Label It," 91% of those polled favored the labeling of genetically modified food. The movement to label GM food therefore seems to have the support of public opinion, and has becomes an adopted practice in 40 other countries, but the FDA still asserts that there is nothing unsafe about GM foods. Of course, the big food companies are lobbying hard against this campaign, since many of their products would have to be labeled.
This article brings up several issues regarding GM food. For one, the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world (particularly Europe) when it comes to the treatment of GMOs. 40 countries require GM food to be labeled, but they also do not have anywhere near the amount of food with GM ingredients as the US. Though the facts about GM food are still not fully known, and according to the article, still pretty unknown to the American public, the fact that 40 other countries felt labeling to be necessary should tell us something.
Monsanto, obviously trying to protect their own interests, said labeling GM food would "undermine consumer confidence in the food supply." To be honest, my confidence is already undermined by the fact that food companies are so resilient to label what is in their products. If GM food is harmless, then what's the harm in labeling it? Of course there would likely be some consumer backlash against GM products, so the harm would be to the food companies' bottom lines. Again, its an issue that brings light to the tight relationship between big business and government.
Bringing this article into the context of environmental justice, I was struck by the last sentence: "...many organic farmers are concerned that GM pollen may drift onto
their fields, thus rendering them unable to sell their products under a
non-GMO label." This sentence brings a different perspective to the issue. We've previously discussed a few articles concerning lawsuits against farmers for unintended patent infringement, and this sentence suggests that GM labeling might be another way that farmers are penalized for trying to grow organic crops. It also touches on the fact that not only could farmers be limited to what they can label as "non-GMO" but also that consumers will be limited on what they can find that is completely free of GM ingredients. Environmentally, the US' genetic diversity is being threatened by GM contamination, and like with most cases of pollution, it is hard to fully reverse its effects. If there are no products that could be labeled non-GMO then labeling hardly seems the issue. That GM foods are so widespread in the first place is troublesome, not just for consumers but for farmers and the environment as well. Is the labeling GM foods then just treating a symptom rather than the cause? Is the idea of "Just Label It" that if GM foods are labeled then people won't consume them? And then shouldn't education about what GM actually means be a focus too?
I had the opportunity to study and give a presentation on GM crops, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I think it's important to mention some of the main benefits of GM foods in order to understand why these crops exist in the first place. GM crops are more resistant to diseases and pests, require fewer herbicides and pesticides, endure more extreme weather conditions, yield increased harvests, can have better nutritional effects, eliminate toxins and carcinogens, and are cheaper to produce. In light of these benefits, it is easier to rationalize why the world is experiencing an increase in GM crops, especially the U.S. In 2006 there were over 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries who produced GM crops. And in 2009, the U.S. produced 48% of the world's GM crops. This shows how prevalent GM crops are, and it highlights the pertinence of this issue.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first portion of this discussion about labeling GM foods, I believe that it is the consumer's right to know if their food is genetically modified or not. If producers don't want to label their foods, it begs the question, "What's wrong with it???" This does not elicit consumer confidence. One main problem is that GM foods are poorly regulated in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Currently, it is voluntary for agricultural businesses to label GM foods. There are three main agencies that have control in the U.S. - the EPA, USDA, and FDA. Each organization is in charge of regulating a certain aspect of food production, but they are not very effective as a whole. In recent years, the Center for Food Safety has been fighting production of genetically altered crops without proper regulations. Other countries, as mentioned, are demonstrating increased resistance to GMOs as well. I think increased regulation of this industry will only benefit the consumer and create safer industry standards. Given the potential benefits for GM foods, I don't think GM crops will be eliminated, so it is best to find a way to better regulate their production to minimize negative effects.
I was previously unaware that farmers were concerned about GM pollen drifting onto their fields. Modified pollen traveling to other crops is a problem because the different crops cross pollinate and create superweeds, and cross-pollination has been shown to hurt animal populations like butterflies and birds, which feast on the plants. However, this additional human component brings a new perspective on the subject. If this situation is like the many we have discussed in class where locals lose their land and livelihood to big corporations, the organic farmers have much to fear. Since the big food producers have both money and power, it would be easy for them to take advantage of poor farmers, especially when large corporations aren't regulated. If GM crops are allowed to exist on lands near organic farmland, there should be a buffer zone in place that prevents GM pollen from polluting the non-GM crops, or a system whereby farmers could be compensated for their loss of crop production and sales. The lack of regulation and public awareness need to be addressed before this issue gets out of hand, and we find ourselves facing unforeseen economic and health problems.
This article, while raising many key issues in the food industry, also raises the question of consumer knowledge. If "a lot of Americans aren't sure what the difference is between GM and organic foods, then there needs to be an increase in concern for what we, as consumers, are purchasing and ingesting. I think that this article points out a weakness in the American buyer, that we are not aware of what is included in our food but are (in most cases) concerned with brand or price. A byproduct of this article is a call for the consumer to assume responsibility and use more discretion while shopping.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is essential to add the GM labels on genetically altered foods. Like dharmabum mentioned above, if there are no adverse side effects of GM foods, then there should be no fear felt by the manufacturers. If the top 500 food companies refuse to place this on their labels because they fear that consumers will lose confidence in their products, they should dispel it due to the overwhelming amount of other top companies that will be doing the same.
Also, if genetically altered foods have easily accessible organic counterparts, why not make the switch? European markets do not contain as many GM foods as we do. We should use them as an example. GM foods are unnecessary but since they are prevalent, it is the right of the consumer to know it is that which they are buying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that GM foods should certainly be labeled. It is in the best interest of consumers and environmental health. The amount of genetically modified ingredients in our food would likely surprise most people, and we have a right to know what we eat. Regardless of the growing scientific debate over the potential public health and environmental concerns with GMOs, it is a fundamental right of consumers to know how the food we eat is produced, and some might even argue it is our ethical or moral responsibility.
ReplyDeleteA long predicted problem with GMO's is resistance: insects have already evolved as resistant to the insecticidal toxins produced from the bacterial cultures in bt-corn. Additionally, other pests can move in to replace the former species preying on cros. There are studies which suggest that even MORE pesticides and herbicides and synthetic chemicals are being used on GM crops as on conventionally grown ones. Besides the insects there are super weeds resistant to the herbicides like roundup (produced by Monsanto). The FDA is in the pocket of Monsanto.
In the U.S. the food industry lobby (which includes biotechnology agribusiness giants like Monsanto that now controls nearly 70% of the global seed sales) is comparatively powerful, and any labeling of food products has encountered substantial resistance, (no pun). For instance, the legal battle over labeling dairy products from cows treated with artificial growth hormones went on for many years. There are currently food disparagement laws in 14 states, slander/libel/or defamation laws protecting some food producers, and anyone can be liable for civil penalties if they speak about a food safety issue and it causes a profit loss, worse yet, the statutory provisions in some states contain implied disparagement clauses, which means someone can make a statement that "implies" one food is better or safer than another and be targeted by a lawsuit. We are talking about labeling foods WITH GM ingredients, but organic milk producers (or even conventional dairy farmers that just did not use added hormones) used to get sued for labeling their milk as produced WITHOUT the use of artificial hormones like rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) on cows. However, if that battle over labeling provides any inferences to the GM labeling question, one angle reveals that labeling would hurt GM food sales and this could encourage companies to use less GM ingredients in their food products and more farmers to grow conventionally and/or organically (at least so as to avoid the GM label, if not for better reasons). In a discussion with a pre-med friend regarding whether these hormones in meat and milk could be contributing to premature menstrual cycles in young women, he observed that even the value store-brand milk at his local supermarket now contains milk without hormones. If we could get those labels on GM foods, there is a good chance people would think twice before purchasing them, especially if there is a viable, conventionally or organically grown, alternative. this would motivate more food producers to be GM free as supply follows demand.
Although some argue that because of high yield of many GM crops, they will inevitably be cheaper, but as the efficacy of GM crops is challenged by issues like resistance, cross-pollination, and the looming possibility of public health concerns, perhaps these are not truly the cheaper crops we thought they would be. Perhaps they have a price we had not imagined because it is not paid into cash registers at the end of grocery lines in checkout aisles, it is paid in the fields of farmers. We pay with the health of the soil, the health of our human bodies, the health of the planet, and the quality of our food.