Running Head: Labeling GMOs

Labeling GMOs The debate over labeling Essay#3 Yasin Ghazzawi Woodbury University

Author Note This paper was prepared for Academic Writing 112, F8, taught by Professor Kim Rawley

Running Head: Labeling GMOs

The use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply is one of the most controversial aspects of modern agriculture. The European Union has banned the sale of products with GMOs. However, in America, GMOs are incorporated into a wide variety of products. Unless a product is specifically labeled as lacking GMOs, American consumers may buy foods and other items that contain these ingredients without being made aware of this fact. Proponents of the products tout their benefits to consumers, and view labeling as a kind of fearmongering. It is unfair, they say, to lump GMOs along with other labeled products such as cigarettes and fast food, implying that GMOs will have a negative impact upon human health. Positive labeling, or labeling all products with GMOs implies risk while inaccurately reflecting health consequences of consuming GMO products (Runge & Jackson 2009). The products have been approved as safe by the necessary regulatory bodies. Proponents add that GMOs can help feed the world by making more disease-resistant crops, expand the available food supply to feed a burgeoning world population, and that labeling of the products will make consumers needlessly suspicious. Opponents of the lack of labeling cite the benefits of consumer choice and the fact that GMOs are often relatively untested, suggesting that the pace of agricultural reform is getting ahead of the ability to regulate these products. They argue that just as consumers have the right to know the calorie counts of the products they buy packaged in the supermarkets, they should have the right NOT to consume GMOs. However, the US Department of Agriculture is moving in the direction of not labeling GMOs. Recently, it approved three new kinds GMOs: alfalfa hay used to produce ethanol, sugar beets, and a fast-growing genetically modified breed of salmon. These

Running Head: Labeling GMOs

products will not even have to be labeled as containing GMOs. The salmon is advertised as an environmentally sustainable alternative to current farmed salmon, which is grown in a more sterile environment than wild fish (AquaAdvantage Fish, 2011, Aqua Bounty). GMO opponents state that if these genetically-modified fish escape and breed with wild salmon, that the entire population of the fish could become tainted. As seen in the documentary The future of food, it is virtually impossible to prevent species from cross-contaminating one another. Mexico has already lost the integrity of its indigenous corn varietals because of cross-pollination from GMO plants nearby. The American public, however, may consume products with GMOs (very few consumers can claim to even try to eat only non-GMO products) but is profoundly uncomfortable with this fact. The majority of Americans believe that GMOs are hazardous to their health and in one recent CBS/NYT poll 87 percent stated that they wanted the products to be labeled (Bittman 2011). Advocates of choice stress that consumers should at least have the ability to choose what foods enter their bodies. However, the FDA counters with its response that because GMOs are considered substantially equivalent in terms of their effects on the body, they are not labeled because this does not constitute material information earning a virtual rubber-stamp for all GMO products (Philpott 2010). When GMOs were first approved, there was a heated and divisive debate within the FDA regarding their impact upon human health and the environment In a 1992 memo, a scientist in the FDAs Microbiology Group wrote: there is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering..several aspects of gene insertion may be more hazardous than traditional plant crossbreeding (Roseboro 2011). The memo came to light during the 1990s when a suit was brought against the FDA, arguing that

Running Head: Labeling GMOs

allowing GMOs to be released into the market unlabeled violated the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing (Roseboro 2011). The suit was not successful. However, even some food industry advocates believe that labeling GMOs might not necessarily be a negative step, given the fact that it has proven to be such a barrier between the US and other nations, in terms of exporting American products. The EU is a large potential market, as is Latin America and other continents that do not allow GMOs to be sold. Labeling GMOs, it is hoped might make them more palatable to regulators. At present, current policies are leading to potential disruption of trade flows in agriculture; these conflicts could compromise global food security at a time when growing population and food imbalances are seen as increasingly likely in the next century (Runge & Jackson 2009). Even some developing nations are rejecting American products offered as aid because they contain GMOs. However, given the extent to which GMOs have already entered the food and fiber chain the debate over GMO labeling in the US might be a moot point (Runge & Jackson 2009). Consumers now have choice in the form of negative labelingthey can select products that are labeled as not containing significant amounts of GMOs, although the degree to which this can be tested, especially in agricultural products, is dubious. Unless products are labeled as not containing GMOs, consumers must be suspicious regarding its contentand even then they may not be able to live an entirely GMO-free life, if there is undetected cross-contamination. Opponents of GMOs might be fighting the wrong battle regarding labeling. Labeling in the long run will not stem the tide of GMO products, if the labels become universal on a wide variety of foods, or if non-GMO labels are relatively meaningless (much like the label organic) because of cross-contamination. It is uncertain if consumers will refuse to buy products containing GMOs,

Running Head: Labeling GMOs

given that large numbers of consumers do not only consume GMO-free products. The true goal of anti-GMO activists is banning GMOs altogether, and fighting for this cause might be very difficult, but more legitimate if they genuinely believe there is compelling scientific evidence that GMOs will harm human health and agriculture.

Running Head: Labeling GMOs

References AquaAdvantage Fish. (2011). Aqua Bounty. Retrieved October 18, 2011 at http://www.aquabounty.com/products/products-295.aspx

Bittman, Mark. (2011). Why arent genetically modified foods labeled? The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2011 at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arentg g-m-o-foods-labeled/?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood

Garcia, D. K., Hillgrove, V., Boekelheide, T., Hansen, M., Pusztai, A., Pollan, M., Muldavin, J., ... Lily Films. (2007). The future of food. Mill Valley, Calif.: Lily Films.

Philpott, Tim. (2011). Obamas broken promises. Mother Jones. Retrieved October 18, 2011 at http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

Roseboro, Ken. (2011). FDA ignored its own scientists warnings about GMO foods. Retrieved October 18, 2011 at http://www.nongmoreport.com/articles/october2011/FDAignoredscientistswarningsGMfoods.php

Runge, C. Ford & Lee Ann Jackson. (2009). Negative labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The Experience Of rBST. 3(1): 9. Retrieved October 18, 2011 at http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n1/v3n1a09-runge.htm