My colleague Lydia Penturf brings up an intriguing and hotly debated topic in her latest post, “GMO Labeling in Texas.” The question of whether or not food companies should be required by law to label products that contain GMOs has recently become of interest to consumers nationwide, and viable arguments have been produced by both proponents and opponents of labeling. Ms. Penturf is correct in stating that there are many things to learn before taking a side on the issue, but I cannot say that I agree with the side she takes in her post. She argues that consumers should have the right to know what is in the food they purchase, and in some respects this is a very good point. However, when the pros of labeling are weighed against the cons, it doesn’t seem worth it to require labeling, and many leading scientific organizations and publications agree.
Ms. Penturf’s facts are correct when she defines GMOs as organisms that have been altered by genetic engineering, and she is also correct that they constitute the vast majority of the crops we consume today. However, this is nothing new to the human race at all. In fact, since agriculture has existed humans have been consuming GMOs. The only thing “genetically modified” means is that an organism has been deliberately bred to produce a more desirable result, and humans have been selectively breeding both plants and animals for thousands of years. Without genetic modification, the yellow corn that is essentially the kingpin of our food industry would not exist. Apples would be smaller than our fists and unpleasantly tart. In this video, Neil DeGrasse Tyson further explains what exactly a GMO is.
In Ms. Penturf’s editorial, she voices concern that there has not been enough research done on GMOs to qualify them as safe, but in fact there have been many studies, none of which could provide evidence that GMOs are harmful. Furthermore, there is extensive research behind the actual genetic modification process itself, making it a far more precise procedure than conventional selective breeding. The labs that produce GMOs have even been able to create foods that combat disease, such as Golden Rice which can prevent blindness by curbing vitamin A deficiency.
The main question Ms. Penturf raises in her post is, “if you claim it is safe, why not just label them?” This is actually a very good question, and the central argument for advocates of GMO labeling. The first answer to this question is the unfounded hysteria and misinformation that would most likely be propagated by GMO labels. Similar to “Gluten Free” labels, they would imply a false sense of healthier choices to the unaware consumer. By requiring GMO labels, we would be implying that GMOs are actually something to avoid, which science has proven they are not. Consumers would gravitate heavily towards non-GMO products, which means most companies would remove GMOs from their products to appease customers. This leads to the second answer to the question: money. Conventional crops require more water and pesticides, and are more expensive to produce. Switching to non-GMO foods could add up to $400 to a family’s annual food bill, and could also mean companies decrease the wages of farm workers to make up for extra costs. In my opinion, if GMOs are safe, it is unnecessary to provide a label that will only cause confusion and cost average people more money.
