Global Issues Blog: September 2014

There is currently a particularly polarizing debate raging on whether or not food products that include genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be required to label their products. Each side makes valid arguments concerning the potential dangers, or lack thereof, of taking certain actions. To fully understand the debate, one must explore what a GMO actually entails.

The simple definition of a GMO is an organism that has had a section of its DNA replaced with that of another species. These changes in DNA cause the organism to produce different proteins at different times, causing a change in a characteristic. The changes are almost always made to increase crop yields through cold, heat, drought, disease, or insect tolerance, making GMOs vastly less expensive and less risky for farmers to grow. For instance, genetically modified corn may simply mature faster or produce more than its unmodified counterparts, a relatively small change. These modifications, however, can be much more drastic. For instance, sections of rat DNA have been replaced with jellyfish DNA, causing the rats to glow in the dark. Obviously none of the genetically modified foods on the market will glow. In fact, the changes are usually so small that there is virtually no difference between the modified and unmodified food.

This is where the debate on GMO labeling really starts. Scientifically, there is no difference between GMOs and other organisms on the market, meaning that most of the scientific community feels there is no reason to separately label the products. Many consumer advocacy groups, however, see the situation very differently. They cite possibilities of increased allergy exposure due to new “franken-foods” containing more than one species of DNA. Some short-term studies of rats have also shown health problems in rats who consumed certain types of genetically modified corn (specifically a type that naturally produces a pesticide). They believe that due to these dangers, the consumer has a right to know if their food contains GMOs. This would allow them to make informed decisions and choose whether or not they want to buy products or produce with modifications.

Anti-Labeling advocates disagree with the labeling, as they believe it will have a variety of unintended and negative outcomes. One of the initial outcomes, they feel, will be a mass hysteria over the safety of GMOs contained in a great amount of common foods. This will cause the consumer to pay more for the organic equivalent of their item, not to mention would be financially devastating to the company producing the food containing GMOs. They could also be less healthy, as they may reject perfectly health and safe produce simply because of a sticker or marking. Farmers would also be hard hit, as they would have to backtrack to use the less productive and reliable unmodified plants. This would mean less agricultural output, ultimately putting the country in risk of a food shortage. Additionally, anti-labelers cite the increasing trend of labeling Non-GMO containing food, which would make the labeling of GMO’s obsolete.

In the end, the fight over GMO labeling is unlikely to move anywhere at a national level. Lobbyists from major food producing companies (Nestle, Kellogg’s, etc.) are doing everything they can to dissuade legislation from passing on this issue. They cite the possible economic difficulties the companies may face if they are forced to label their products containing GMOs. In the meantime, GMOs continue to increase crop efficiency in and increasingly cramped and hungry world. Consumers can expect more difficulties avoiding GMO products in years to come and must be vigilant if they are to do so successfully. It is ultimately up to the consumers to research whether their food contains GMOs and decide whether they will take the risk of consuming it.

Global Issues Blog

Thursday, September 4, 2014

GMO Labeling