On November 6th, California voters will be asked to vote on a proposition about labeling of genetically modified (GM) products. On the surface this seems quite reasonable: people should have information about what they consume. In my view, labeling requirements are appropriate when there is undisputed scientific evidence that a food component is damaging, which, for example, is the reason for warning labels on cigarettes. But with GMOs this is not the case. For example, a recent NRC report states that GMOs are as safe if not more safe than conventional food which is also consistent with most of the published research.
Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are already modified as they have been generated through techniques such as selective breeding and hybridization of crops among others. The discovery of DNA and advances in modern molecular biology allow us to develop more refined and precise crop breeding techniques where we slightly modify existing varieties by adding a specific trait. Obviously, genetic engineering is in its infancy, and has already led to major developments in medicine. Even though it has been underutilized in agriculture, existing GMOs have had significant impact. The most popular traits address pest control (Bt varieties) and tolerance to herbicides (Round-up ready varieties). These traits have been adopted with corn and soybeans in the US, Brazil, and Argentina among others and also in cotton in India, China, and some developing countries. Studies show that GM varieties of cotton and corn in developing countries increased in per acre yield by more than 50%, and GMOs contributed significantly to the more than doubling of the production of soybeans.
The importance of GMOs has to be viewed within a global context. Population and income growth have led to increased demand for food and especially meat. Meat production is feed intensive. This and the introduction of biofuel has resulted in increased prices of agricultural commodities. When food becomes scarce (and expensive), it is the global poor that suffers most. Our calculations suggest that the magnitude of the impact of GMOs on reducing food commodity prices was the same or even bigger than biofuels had on increases of these prices (15-30% reduction in the price of corn and soybeans overall). Furthermore, the prices of cotton did not rise with the prices of other commodities in 2008 due to increased supply from the adoption of GMOs. If African nations and Europe would have adopted GMOs, current prices of food would have decreased significantly, and much of the suffering associated with the food shortages could have been avoided. Thus even in its early stages GMOs have made significant contributions to reducing food shortages and saving lives.
Adoption of GMOs is not only good for food commodity prices and the well being of the poor, it is also good for the environment. Adoption of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled transition to minimal tillage techniques, which reduced the GHG effect of agriculture equivalent to hundreds of thousands of cars annually. GMOs make it possible to produce food on less land, reducing the incentive of converting wild land into agricultural land. There is evidence that by replacing toxic chemicals in India and China, adoption of GMOs directly saved many lives. Reduction of exposure to pesticides and the resulting health effects has been a major cause for adoption in the US.
But what about Monsanto? This company has a monopoly on crucial patents and has made a lot of money from GMOs. This is undisputed. However, studies show that the economic gain from GMOs was divided between consumers, farmers, and seed manufacturers without anyone gaining the lion’s share. Apple also makes a lot of money and no one complains. Of course there is room for increasing access to intellectual property, especially products that are of value to the poor, but labeling GMOs is not the optimal way to achieve this goal.
Now, what about emergence of resistance to GMOs? This is an unavoidable consequence because of evolution. This means that we need to have continuous research in the life sciences to find solutions for potential problems. I believe sustainability is different than Nirvana; we cannot find final solutions that do not give rise to new problems. GMO is a technology that allows us to better adapt to new diseases and climate change. Genetic tools will improve our adaptive capacities to climate change.
The public is divided among individuals who believe that GMOs are bad, others who think they are valuable, and many who are basically indifferent. The last group may not see the damage of requiring labeling of GMOs since they do not see the big loss. However, labels make a difference. A labeling requirement creates a stigma effect that will reduce the demand for GM products and may reduce investment in new GM traits. The net effect will be to slow the development of agricultural biotechnology, and this in turn may negatively affect health, the economy, and the environment. It is actually counter-productive to the many environmental and social goals that we cherish. Therefore, labeling of GMOs will be a step in the wrong direction.
This is hilarious. Much like many professors you are most likely paid by big corporations like Dupont or Monsanto.
[Report abuse]
You are assuming a lot of facts here, most of which are not substantiated. If GMOs are so wonderful, why do people who create them and others who advocate for them (including President Obama and Monsanto’s board) only eat organic? That is a level of hypocrisy I cannot tolerate. It is like the chef who won’t eat his/her own concoction. The government states that foods made with GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to food made from non-GMOs, so there should be no reason for this hypocrisy; we should all be basking in the GMO sea, yes? Your argument certainly make it sound like we should. But, we’re not…correction: the rich and well-to-do are not. That alone tells me something is not quite right with GMOs. In this respect, the fight over GMOs (such as it exists) is really a class warfare problem. It is the biggest case of demand subterfuge that has quite possibly ever existed (the rich demand something that only the non-rich consume, discounting for the discussion the use of GMOs in non-ingestible capacities). This makes it a clear market failure. Ordinarily, one of government’s major roles is correcting market failures. In this case, I hardly see how that can even come close to occurring.
Having said this, I would not trust labeling from a government that has demonstrated time and again how pro-GMO it is — the Obama administration and others before it have been virtual Monsanto subsidiaries. Labeling will likely foster even greater complacency among the American public, not to mention the manipulations in labeling that will no doubt occur. There are ways to stay away from GMOs without labeling, consumers need to have some degree of confidence in this — it is possible to do. Consumers simply need to get their act together and start telling everyone they know about GMOs, their pervasiveness, and the elitist argument therein (how President Obama and other high-profile politicians and celebrities eat organic but advocate you eat GMOs because they stand to benefit from your uninformed consumption). Consumers have the power to change this; the question of whether they will is undetermined.
Also, your inclusion of Apple in a discussion of product labeling is entirely irrelevant and quite possibly, misleading. Apple makes a product that people are aware of and use. Are you advocating against some kind of labeling with Apple products? If so, I was not aware of a labeling debate with Apple. If not, the inclusion interferes in the discussion. Apple has nothing to hide from, necessarily. Apple created its wealth from products that actual people have demanded and used. (Their labor practices are questionable as are the prices they charge, but that is not the topic at hand). Monsanto makes a product that not many people know about, even though they consume them just about as much as they use Apple’s products, if not more. I see no comparison and think your argument grows even weaker by including it.
Point is: in a capitalistic market, every producer should have to satisfy the demand equation of production. Currently, Monsanto has hidden from that demand because of an ignorant public and a greedy political system. However, socialist intervention via labeling is probably not appropriate. We are (for better or worse) a true capitalist society and capitalists have a hard time implementing effective socialist policies; they become band-aids that eventually wither away only to reveal the underlying problem once again. Europeans have an easier time implementing labeling and other restrictions – perhaps that is why they do not have a giant like Monsanto within their borders in the first place. Having said that, Monsanto and the biotech firms (and likely some politicians) will be very sorry someday that they did not advocate for labeling when consumers finally get their heads on straight and the market starts to talk back to them in a very negative way. In other words, market correction is the best way to go on this issue. Unfortunately, it can be painfully slow (especially with a biased government) and unpredictable along the way, but it is the only truly effective solution available. Continue to spread the word….
[Report abuse]
Without labeling we won’t know if there are problems, or it will take longer to figure out if GMO is a problem to our health. And that’s exactly what the GMO companies want…no traceability. A simple “Contains GM products” is sufficient.
L-Tryptophan manufactured by GMO bacteria killed many people due to the higher levels and increased numbers of contaminates produced by the GM modification. It took years to find it and several people died or suffered needlessly because it was not properly labelled. Same goes for GMO foods: if something toxic enters the food chain and has slow or similar symptoms to other allergenic diseases, then we may never find out the culprit. All of our current epidemic diseases of today could easily be caused by GMO contamination.
Proper labeling would at least provide a chance to eliminate the GMO issue and see if it is the cause. Without labeling this is extremely difficult.
[Report abuse]
Remember ! Being HEALTHY and live a long, healthy life is the most important!! …priority # 1 !!! GMO is a disaster for all of us and our future generations!! Be aware and choose wisely as there is no way back…
[Report abuse]