Food

GMOs and You

To label, or not to label
  • Google+

corn2-o.jpg

Since the narrow defeat last November of California’s Prop 37, which would have mandated labeling of genetically modified foods, the sentiment behind the proposition has spread—or metastasized, depending on your perspective—into similarly conceived bills in 26 other states, including Washington.

Proponents of such laws mostly argue that we have a right to know what’s in our food. However, it’s probably fair to say that for many supporters, labeling would be a consolation prize in place of an outright ban on GMOs. But we’re not going to stop GMOs. And it’s becoming clear that labels aren’t going to be blocked forever, either. So instead of fighting about whether or not we need them, it makes sense for both sides to sit down and talk about how labels should look.

In an April blog post for Discover magazine online, Ramez Naam argued that it makes sense for GMO food supporters to stop opposing labels:

“I support GMOs. And we should label them. We should label them because that is the very best thing we can do for public acceptance of agricultural biotech. And we should label them because there’s absolutely nothing to hide.”

According to most polls, the percentage of Americans that support labeling is in the low-to-mid 90s. To dismiss such popular sentiment would be to ignore the will of the vast majority, which wouldn’t be very democratic. It would in fact be a bit obnoxious, Naam writes. By fighting GMO labeling, he argues, “We’re persuading those who might otherwise have no opinion on GMOs that there must be something to hide.”

One recent ABC poll showed 57 percent of shoppers would be less likely to buy products that are labeled GMO, suggesting a significant chunk of those who support labels aren’t afraid to eat GMO foods. Other common reasons for support of labeling include opposition to GMOs for environmental reasons, the “right to know,” and angst over corporate control of the food system.

Polls may not ask it, but for many, GM is more symbol than issue, just one part of the industrialized, monoculture-based food system that they don’t wish to participate in.

Clearly, that 57 percent of GMO-fearing shoppers would represent a significant cut to the revenue of biotech corporations, and of corporate farmers who use GMO seeds, and it isn’t clear to what extent they will be able to make up the difference by squeezing processors, retailers and consumers.

Such financial concerns are part of why Big Biotech shouldn’t be part of the labeling discussion: it has too much at stake, and wields undue influence—outspending the grassroots support of Prop 37, for example, by five-to-one. Corporate recusal is something pro-GMO people should get behind, too.

Many people who support labeling, or who oppose GMOs in their food, do so because they are uncomfortable with this powerful technology being forged in a corporate crucible, where there is a conflict between pleasing shareholders and proceeding with caution.

Big Biotech’s history of unpopular moves, including farmer lawsuits, and opposition to voluntary GMO labels, has long posed a problem to GMO-supporters, who often include a little Monsanto-bashing in their pro-GMO arguments as a means of communicating that Monsanto does not equal GMO. Perhaps these pundits would agree that it makes sense to exclude corporations from organizing and funding discussions about how labels should look. (The industry recently posted its own forum on all things GMO, http://www.gmoanswers.com).

Concerns about corporate behavior and motivation can overshadow the examples of GM crops that don’t exist in order to sell more pesticides, or otherwise generate corporate revenue. The ringspot-resistant Rainbow papaya, created at the University of Hawaii and Cornell University, was a public sector effort that likely saved the state’s papaya industry from being wiped out by the virus.

Efforts like these are easier to support, and wholesale anti-GMO ideologues should be clear about what, specifically, they oppose. An honest discussion about labeling could help tease apart distinct issues that are often lumped together.

Critics of labeling frequently argue that a general label, along the lines of “contains GMOs,” communicates very little, because there are so many different kinds of GMOs. But given that labeling seems inevitable, perhaps the pro-GMO side could help create a system that tells us something meaningful.

Given the apparent inevitability of labeling, a meaningful system should be the goal for advocates on both sides of the issue. Then, GMO skeptics could have their labels, GMO cheerleaders will have their nuance, and the will of the large majority of Americans will prevail. Doesn’t that sound like how democracy should work?

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Cascadia Weekly

Home | Views | | Archives | Advertising | Contact | RSS

© 1998-2014 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200