Business
GMOs: Not Just for Lab Rats Anymore!
The dinner plate sizzles with the fattest tilapia fillet you’ve ever seen. Even Long John Silver’s mouth is watering. There is only thing that could calm your rumbling belly—seeing the original fish. Increasing the size meant
The dinner plate sizzles with the fattest tilapia fillet you’ve ever seen. Even Long John Silver’s mouth is watering. There is only thing that could calm your rumbling belly—seeing the original fish. Increasing the size meant giving the tilapia a deformed head and back and shriveled up gonads, so you might need a few chardonnay bottles to choke this hunchback down.
No, this isn’t Big-Game Fishing with Victor Frankenstein, it’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and these genetically engineered (GE) foods are probably sitting in your cupboard right now. The Department of Agriculture estimates that 90 percent of all U.S. soybeans, corn, canola and sugar beets are grown with transgenic seed, meaning you’ve consumed it in sugar, corn syrup, soy protein and most processed foods. Why didn’t you know? The GE industry is fighting tooth and nail to prevent mandatory genetic-food labeling, and a passive government has the American people leading the revolt. The Just Label It campaign delivered over a million pro-label endorsements to the Food and Drug Administration, and California may soon put labeling to a vote.
“The GMO labeling initiative is an attempt to get a measure on the California November ballot that requires GMO-containing food products to be labeled as such,” says Dr. Keith Schildt, Chair of the Department of Public & Health Administration at the University of La Verne. “The initiative needs 500,000 signatures from registered California voters, and we have already surpassed that threshold.”
“Right to Know”
As part of his public policy classes, Dr. Schildt utilized students to raise awareness, develop materials and collect signatures. The students, who chose this particular policy issue, made sure the initiative is about “right to know” rather than an indictment on GMOs. For some people, though, the issue is actually a “need to know.”
Dr. Schildt explains, “There have been and continue to be the use of animal DNA in GMO-modified vegetables and fruit, such as arctic flounder DNA in tomatoes. If someone is a vegan or vegetarian, they should have the right to know that, when eating some piece of fruit or vegetable, they are also digesting a meat product.”
What, then, is the other side of the argument? GE companies believe a label implies negative health effects, which they claim do not exist. Likewise, consumers already have the option to buy non-GE products via certified organic foods, albeit at a premium. There are also questions about what products need labels. For example, would you label an egg that comes from a normal chicken that eats GE feed? The biotech corporations’ most adamant argument, however, is that labeling imposes additional costs for food testing, record keeping and new printing materials that would be passed along to the consumer.
“The industry argues that labeling will only confuse consumers, but when a million comments are sent to the FDA in support of the petition, this sounds completely bogus,” explains Anne Dietrich, vice president of the Truth in Labeling Coalition. “In the 50 countries that require labels on genetically engineered food, consumers for the most part are not buying it, and farmers are not planting it. That’s not good for business.”
Failed Promise?
Five years ago, a young senator stood before a group of Iowa farmers and promised GE labeling should he become president. Then-Senator Obama declared, “Let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they are buying.” Today, the President who promised to shut down Gitmo and stop raiding legal medical marijuana facilities has surprisingly failed to fulfill his labeling promise. In the meantime, labels have become mandatory in most of the developed world, including in Japan, China and the European Union. That right, the People’s Republic of China—you know, the one with Foxconn and turtle soup—is more consumer-safety conscious on genetic food than the Stars and Stripes.
Dave Murphy, the founder and executive director of Iowa-based Food Democracy Now!, suggests, “President Obama’s promise to label GMOs on the campaign trail in 2007 was made in front of an audience of Iowa farmers, many of whom plant genetically engineered crops. He received overwhelming applause, and many of the 400 people in the audience were encouraged to hear such a rising political star make this promise . . . The Obama administration’s failure to live up to his simple and common sense promise is proof of the continued collusion between giant corporations and our elected officials. Both repeatedly put corporate profits over the rights, safety and wellbeing of everyday Americans.”
In fact, WikiLeaks documents claim the U.S. heavily promotes GE crops in Africa, Asia and South America with significant taxpayer dollars. According to the site, one diplomatic cable even suggested “retaliation” against France for banning a corn variety created by GE corporate monster Monsanto.
Labeling Law
So, is GE food safe or toxic? People adamantly argue both sides. Microsoft mogul Bill Gates embraces biotechnology as the possible answer to the global food crisis. In a world of famine, flood and pestilence, science can make crops more resistant to drought, insects and floods and make meat-products grow faster and bigger. Nina Fedoroff, a Pennsylvania State University biology professor and former Secretary of State adviser, is another strong advocate who claims the anti-GE rhetoric is all myth. Still, even the ardent pro-GE people agree that the long-term health effects are unknowable and could potentially become widespread.
“The thing about genetic engineering is that, unlike chemical pollution, which diminishes over time, genetic contamination multiplies over time in each succeeding generation of plant or animal,” explains Dietrich. ”What effect this untested technology will have on my grandchildren’s children is the reason I am making sure we get a labeling law for genetically engineered food passed in the next three years.”
Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer Reports, also sees labeling as a crucial safeguard. Writing the AMA Council on Science and Public Health, Dr. Hansen argued, “There is more than enough uncertainty to decide to require labeling of foods produced via GE as a risk management measure as a way to identify unintended health effects that may occur post approval. If foods are not labeled as to GE status, it would be very difficult to even identify an unexpected health effect resulting from a GE food.”
GE food might save the world or poison it. Everyone hopes it helps, and maybe it will, but seeing an industry fight for consumer ignorance is not reassuring. The labeling debate is not about the safety of genetic food, but rather it’s the belief that more information is better than less when it comes to our health.
