Commentary: Doing a 180 on GMO labeling

decrease font size  Resize text   increase font size       Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

A major new CAST study purports to be the ‘final word’ on whether we have to keep arguing over genetic engineering. But its recommendations need to go in the exact opposite direction.

There are plenty of hotly contested issues facing animal agriculture. But of all the polarizing debates over animal welfare, food safety or vegetarian diets, none seem to evoke more confusion among consumers than GMO labeling.

Some of the most sensible, otherwise intelligent people I know have a blind spot big enough to drive a Peterbilt through when it comes to the genetic engineering of food crops.

Activists have managed to stoke that confusion and generate genuine fear over GMOs based on three perceived problems (in ascending order): 

  • The fallout from repeated use of Roundup- or pother herbicide-resistant varieties of food crops, ie, “super weeds” are going to destroy farming;
  • The impact of ingesting “foreign” proteins in foods made with GMO ingredients, ie, GMOs are going to kill you; and
  • The rise of corporate control over the seeds essential to maintain agricultural productivity, ie, Monsanto is the new Dow Chemical.

That last bullet point is what stokes the visceral hatred toward GMOs and drives the fundraising essential to conducting the (so far failed) state referenda that would mandate labeling. What fires up activists and a heck of a lot of other folks is less about nebulous effects of genetically engineered crops on the environment, or even on one’s health, and more about fear and loathing over the potential of Big Ag to control who grows which crops and what kind of foods people will be allowed to eat.

Why rational arguments don’t work

Enter CAST, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, with a new position paper purporting to represent the final word on the validity on genetic engineering.

Nice try.

Don’t get me wrong: CAST is a highly respected, thoroughly professional group of some of the top researchers, scientists and academicians in the country. However, making the “scientific “argument to support a complex technology few people outside of the biotech community truly understand is the equivalent of pointing out that getting killed in a car crash is a lot more likely than dying in an airliner explosion — then expecting everyone to just chill out on terrorism.

Likewise, if the esteemed CAST panelists really believe their analysis to be the final word on GMOs, they’re kidding themselves. For proof, here are the report’s key summary statements:

  1. There is no scientific reason to single out GE foods and feed for mandatory process-based labeling.
  2. Mandatory GMO labeling [would] abandon the traditional U.S. practice of providing for consumer food preferences through voluntary product differentiation and labeling.
  3. Market-driven voluntary labeling measures are already providing consumers with non-GE choices.

The implication of these “pronouncements” is that distinguished scientists have examined the research, reviewed the technology and concluded that the debate should now cease. The case is closed and no further arguments are needed about the validity of genetic engineering.

Of course, that’s not remotely the situation on the ground, so let’s address those bullet points in order.

Statement No. 1: Yes, it’s true that the science doesn’t support mandatory GMO labeling. But how many diehard anti-GMO activists are scientists themselves? More to the point, how many activists and media people actually understand how biotechnology works? And even if they did, no matter how persuasive the CAST panel believes its arguments to be, do they really think that millions of Frankenfood-phobes are suddenly going to start saying, “You know, after reading that report on ‘The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods,’ I’m now convinced that GMOs are totally safe, and we don’t need to bother with any costly labeling laws. Thank you, CAST members!”

Even in a parallel universe, that’s never going to happen.

Statement No. 2: Are you serious? When was that magical era when food labeling was “traditionally” done only by the manufacturer, on a voluntary basis, as they saw fit? Anyone heard of COOL? Or nutrition labeling? They weren’t part of any “voluntary product differentiation” process.

Statement No. 3: Incorrect and backwards. Yes, there are a few isolated product lines whose marketers have begun to experiment with voluntary “non-GMO” labeling. However, it’s hardly universal, nor do those scattered non-GMO brands represent real consumer choice.

But here’s the larger point. If the food industry (and CAST) has the goal of eventually convincing a majority of Americans that genetic engineering represents sound science being applied to foster genuine consumer benefits, then every package of non-GMO-labeled product that’s chosen by those same consumers represents a vote against safe, scientifically supported food production technology.

When shoppers decide that, all things being equal, they’d prefer a food product not manufactured with GMO ingredients, that isn’t a signal to insist there’s no need for mandatory labeling. Such a hollow argument not only doesn’t sway people to view biotechnology more favorably, it’s proof that, in fact, they do not consider GMOs to be safe.

There’s only one way to convince consumers that genetic engineering is merely the application to food production of the same high-tech and sound science we heartily embrace in telecomm or computing developments, and it's a two-pronged strategy.

First, the scientific community, public-sector research institutions and nonprofit funding sources need to devote significant resources to the prompt and substantive development of GE crops that actually benefit consumers, ie, offering better nutrition, more flavor or added convenience. Golden Rice is a start, and plenty of people are favorably disposed to the idea that children in the developing world might be spared the ravages of severe nutritional deficiencies through genetic engineering.

But that’s the Third World, not the world in which Americans live.

Unless and until the biotech community and the major food processors introduce GE foods that can be marketed as better for you and better for the environment, the “Frankenfoods” fantasy will continue to thrive.

And second, the food industry needs to begin voluntary pro-GMO labeling. Instead of “genetically engineered,” GE needs to mean “genetically enhanced.”

If genetic engineering is safe (and it is); if it’s needed as a tool to enhance agricultural productivity (and it is); and if the technology is ever going to be accorded mainstream acceptance — which is the only way to end the campaigning for mandatory labeling — then food manufacturers need to put their packaging where their principles are.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.


Prev 1 2 3 Next All



Buyers Guide

Doyle Equipment Manufacturing Co.
Doyle Equipment Manufacturing prides themselves as being “The King of the Rotary’s” with their Direct Drive Rotary Blend Systems. With numerous setup possibilities and sizes, ranging from a  more...
A.J. Sackett Sons & Company
Sackett Blend Towers feature the H.I.M, High Intensity Mixer, the next generation of blending and coating technology which supports Precision Fertilizer Blending®. Its unique design allows  more...
R&R Manufacturing Inc.
The R&R Minuteman Blend System is the original proven performer. Fast, precise blending with a compact foot print. Significantly lower horsepower requirement. Low inload height with large  more...
Junge Control Inc.
Junge Control Inc. creates state-of-the-art product blending and measuring solutions that allow you to totally maximize operating efficiency with amazing accuracy and repeatability, superior  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The flagship blending system for the Layco product line is the fully automated Layco DW System™. The advanced technology of the Layco DW (Declining Weight) system results in a blending  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The LAYCOTE™ Automated Coating System provides a new level of coating accuracy for a stand-alone coating system or for coating (impregnating) in an automated blending system. The unique  more...
John Deere
The DN345 Drawn Dry Spreader can carry more than 12 tons of fertilizer and 17.5 tons of lime. Designed to operate at field speeds up to 20 MPH with full loads and the G4 spreader uniformly  more...
Force Unlimited
The Pro-Force is a multi-purpose spreader with a wider apron and steeper sides. Our Pro-Force has the most aggressive 30” spinner on the market, and is capable of spreading higher rates of  more...
BBI Spreaders
MagnaSpread 2 & MagnaSpread 3 — With BBI’s patented multi-bin technology, these spreaders operate multiple hoppers guided by independent, variable-rate technology. These models are built on  more...


Comments (2) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Alison Van Eenennaam    
Davis  |  April, 29, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Please include all of the conclusions of the full report which include legal and economic implications of process-based labeling in the absence of any difference in the food product - see http://www.cast-science.org for the report • All domesticated crops and animals have been genetically modified in some way; there is no science-based reason to single out GE foods and feeds for mandatory process-based labeling. Wide-ranging evidence shows that GE technology is equally safe to conventional breeding. • Mandatory labeling based on process abandons the traditional U.S. practice of providing for consumer food preferences through voluntary product differentiation and labeling (e.g. kosher, organic, certified humane, cage free, NE3, grass-fed etc. etc.) • Market-driven voluntary labeling measures currently provide consumers with non-GE choices in the U.S. marketplace. • Current labeling authority is federal; state mandatory labeling laws may be invalidated for conflicting with preemptive federal authority and may also violate First Amendment rights. If courts invalidate such locally imposed laws, it may be seen that courts are thwarting consumer will. Litigation seems a likely outcome if states pass mandatory labeling laws. • Labeling at the national level has trade implications and needs to be harmonized with international trade agreements which frown upon mandatory labeling of production process when there is no scientific evidence that the process relates to food safety. • Mandatory GE labeling will increase U.S. food costs. The size of this increase will depend on choices made in the marketplace by suppliers and marketers, and what products are included in labeling requirements. No a priori way to predict this cost!!

carolyn    
Indiana  |  April, 30, 2014 at 10:33 AM

You say there needs to be greater effort on the "development of GE crops that actually benefit consumers, ie, offering better nutrition, more flavor or added convenience" - but then your example illustrates the real problem - Golden Rice - is not owned by a major corporation, there will be no profiteering, everyone agrees that it could provide a major health improvement to children and it even has the pope's blessing - and yet activists are fighting it - research is not free, product approval takes time and funds, and a product like Golden Rice is still protested. Why should any company devote significant resources to additional products?


Fertilizer Conveying Systems

Waconia Manufacturing routinely designs receiving systems for volume requirements from 60 to 1,500 TPH. All receiving systems are fabricated with ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Feedback Form