Two sides to the GMO debate
On Wednesday, a county in Oregon banned the use of genetically modified (GM) crops. This news comes on the heels of Vermont passing a law last month that will now require foods with GM ingredients to be labeled, following the lead of Maine and Connecticut. California and Washington state attempted to pass similar laws last year, but fell short. Currently, there are 85 pending genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bills in 29 states.
So what is ‘GMO Labeling,’ and why are people so passionate about it?
GMO, which stands for genetically modified organisms, is a term applied to any plant or animal that has undergone gene alteration in order to adapt to pesticides or diseases. Most GMOs are “typically used to make ingredients that are then used in other food products,” according to the FDA. In fact, up to 60-70 percent of food on the shelves in grocery stores contain GMOs, and the most common are corn, canola, soybean, and cotton.
PRO-LABELING ARGUMENT
There is no denying that the anti-GMO camp has been gaining momentum the past few years. Such momentum, in fact, that Packaged Facts has projected that sales for GMO-free food will top $800 billion, double that of 2012 sales.
The heart of the argument is, more or less, that humans deserve to know what is in their food. And there seems to be genuine widespread support to back it up, too. A New York Times poll last year found that 93% of Americans would like to see genetically modified (GM) foods labeled as such. The EU has adapted labeling for GM products, and anything GM also undergoes stringent risk assessment tests before it is allowed to be sent to the market.
More radical anti-GMO activists also do not believe that genetically engineered food is sustainable for health or for the environment, and corporations that promote them shouldn’t be trusted. They claim that organizations like Monsanto and the FDA, which make day-to-day decisions on the eating habits of Americans, are not looking out for the interests of average Americans. “Big Food,” or “Big Ag” as these organizations have come to be known, have a specific bottom line: money.
More and more food corporations seem to be jumping on the “no GMO” bandwagon. Cheerios no longer using genetically engineered ingredients, and Whole Foods vowing to have everything in the store labeled by 2018.
ANTI-LABELING ARGUMENT
The crux of the argument for those who don’t agree with labeling is that it is unnecessary, and potentially very expensive. For instance, The Atlantic pointed out thatif the labeling trend continues, it would create “a 50-state patchwork of conflicting labeling requirements that could force manufacturers to package, say, potato chips differently from one state to another.” Basically, this means it would be costly and burdensome to food companies.
Besides, there just isn’t a substantial amount of evidence proving that GMOs are dangerous at all. “Civilization rest on people’s ability to modify plants to make them more suitable as food, feed and fiber plants,” the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in a statement. As for the environmental harm GMOs could cause, Grist’s food writer pointed out that genetically engineered crops have actually decreased the use of insecticide overall throughout the U.S., a win for the environment.
But while those in favor of bioengineered crops have some facts on their side, history may be against them. Organizations that vehemently support GMOs, such as the Heartland Institute and Hoover Institute, have in the past also been noted skeptics of climate change and the link between cigarettes and cancer.
No matter which side of the argument you fall on, the debate about the GMO labeling doesn’t look like it will be going away anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment