A group called SumOfUs.org re-sparked my interest in GMO food labelling by sending around a petition to encourage Costo to keep genetically modified fish from its shelves. This caused me to spend a few hours delving into the Internet jungle on such topics as genetically modified foods, terminator genes, patenting life, intellectual property rights, seed banks and heritage seeds. Here's some of what I found, mainly from Wikipedia.
Genetically modified foods are foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. These techniques have allowed for the introduction of new traits as well as a far greater control over a food's genetic structure than previously afforded by methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.... To date, most genetic modification of foods has primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and better nutrient profiles.
The American Medical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labelling of genetically modified food because they said there is no scientific evidence of harm.... (and) that mandatory labelling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".
On the other side of the coin, some medical associations feel that: "lack of labelling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"
... opponents have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, environmental concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that GM seeds (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by multinational corporations.
Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. However since the early 1900s hybrid crops have been widely used in the developed world and seeds to grow these crops must be purchased each year from seed producers. The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose the beneficial traits of the parents, resulting in the loss of hybrid vigor. In these cases, the use of hybrid plants has been the primary reason for growers not saving seed, not intellectual property issues. However, for non-hybrid biotech crops, such as transgenic soybeans, seed companies use intellectual property law and tangible property common law, each expressed in contracts, to forbid farmers from saving seed. For example, Monsanto has a strong patent portfolio on its genetically modified seed, and it obligates farmers who choose to buy their seeds to sign a license agreement, agreeing that they cannot save seed from their crop to plant in successive years and can use the seed only to grow a crop that they will store or sell.
Greenpeace International states that: Patenting of GE organisms allows industry to take control of and exploit common organisms and genetic material as exclusive private property that can be sold to or withheld from farmers, breeders, scientists and doctors. Technology agreements and fees on seeds, facilitated by patents, deprive farmers of their generations-old right to freely replant and exchange their seeds. Once a shared heritage, the gene pool of plants, animals and humans is now a commodity waiting to be bought and sold.
WHEW!
So, should North Americans label GMO foods? Should we even stock such foods on our grocery shelves? If you recognize that the main crops already genetically modified are soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil, and begin to research and recognize that derivatives of these crops are found in practically every existing processed food product now on grocery shelves, you will begin to see that very little of what we consume has escaped genetic modification entirely. Even some non-processed foods like fruits and vegetables have been genetically modified. A GMO label could frighten some buyers while others may not care. If people can't afford non-GMO foods (which would probably go up in price), "natural" or "organic" foods, they will go ahead and buy GMO's or avoid these products altogether. Can we say that avoidance is a good nutritional choice? Then, when you get down to the nitty gritty, aren't labels like "natural", "organic", and "free range" also just labels with a vast array of definitions used to attract health conscious individuals? Is SumOfUS's usage of the word "Frankenfood" not also a label?
What is honest about labelling? The claims made on our foods (all products for that matter) are cleverly worded to make us buy. Though they are not actual lies they are misleading to the extreme. Knowing that the public is highly interested in healthy foods, advertisers can make almost anything appear healthy using the right wording. You can spend hours reading labels and still feel lost and confused.
It would be nice if labels were not subject to these subtle manipulations; if we could actually understand labels without holding a degree in science; if nutrition, quality and good taste were the established criteria for foods we buy rather than the producer's bottom line; if labels didn't lie by exaggeration, omission, and pseudo-scientific jargon; IF LABELS COULD BE TRUSTED - then maybe labelling GMO products would be worthwhile. At the very least it would offer us a choice. But, being a jaded skeptic, I have a feeling that GMO labelling would somehow be skewed, buried in jargon, given a different name, only required if a certain percentage of modification were present, hidden or made to appear advantageous. In no time at all we would be desensitized to the label. We are fairly easy to persuade.
Frankly I don't like the idea of eating GMO products unaware, but the most frightening aspect, I feel, of GMO's is the concept of "intellectual property rights", the patenting of life, the possibility that a multinational corporation can have control over a substance absolutely necessary for life - food. So I'm for keeping seeds, for Heritage Seed Banks, for growing as much of your own food as you can (not just us country folks - urban gardens should be the norm), for the 100 mile diet, for eating foods that are in season rather than expecting them to be available year round, for supporting farmer's markets, and for food (and water) security in all countries. My bottom line - keep the control of food out of the hands of unfeeling, uncaring, unaccountable, money grabbing corporate hogs. If labelling GMO foods will help to facilitate that, I'm all for it.
