"The law requires labels telling us what's in our mattresses.
How can anyone object to telling us what's in our food?"
I have discussed food labeling with those who strongly believe in the harmlessness of GMO foods, and who object to any sort of labeling requirement.
The reasoning against labeling goes thusly:
- GMOs are harmless.
- People are easily swayed by fearmongers.
- Labeling will cause people to discriminate against GMO foods.
- GMO foods have certain advantages for farmers and distributors.
- higher yield (greater pesticide effectiveness)
- easier mechanization of farming
- less spoilage of food during transport and storage - If GMO foods don't sell, those advantages will not be realized. And Monsanto will not recoup their research money (a lot of which came from the federal government.)
I find this reasoning specious.
I will not get into whether GMOs are safe or not. That is where most discussions founder, as one side presents studies that support their argument, which are then not accepted by the other. To me, that is not really relevant. The question is not one of safety, but of labeling. Do we have the right to know what is in our food?
As far as I can tell, the argument against labeling comes down to this: people are too stupid to assess the risks and benefits, and make up their own minds whether to buy GMO. The crazies will win. Everywhere else, we say, provide information and let the free market decide. Not here.
If the problem is truly that people are too easily swayed by people fearful of technology, and ignorant of science, then mount an advertising campaign to educate people. Make your case. Convince people. If GMOs are really that much more efficient, then their use should result in lower food prices - that's a pretty big incentive, that will overcome a lot of negative PR. If GMOs allow farming practices that help the environment, tell people. Make GMO labeling an advertising plus. That is what "Organic" has done. A lot of fruits and veggies are sold with blemishes that are overlooked because the produce is "organic".
The mere fact that so many people are uneasy about GMOs is a reason to label. If their fears are groundless, then those fears they will eventually be allayed. Hiding GMO status, on the other hand, will simply, inevitably, cause a future scandal. Somebody will have a problem, it will be "discovered" that GMOs were involved, and the story will then be one of conspiracy and coverup. A little reluctance to adopt now is much better than what will happen in the future if the knowledge of GMO status is suppressed.
Another reason to label is that there will always be some people who have a sensitivity to an ingredient. We label peanuts, gluten, milk products; all sorts of things because some people - not most - need to know. We now require country of origin labeling on fruits and veggies. We even label religious status (kosher, pareve) for some foods.
Are there any reasons NOT to label? Public aversion is often cited, but as I said, the response to that is to provide more information, not to withhold it. Respect people's ability to make up their own minds. It may take awhile, but what's the hurry?
Some people I have discussed this with have likened objections to GMOs to objections to vaccination. In both cases, they say, people ignore the actual science. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful, they say, and no evidence that vaccination causes autism or any of the other things detractors claim. That may be so. But I see a huge distinction between the two.
Vaccinations work on the herd level. A certain percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated, or else you have a reservoir in which the pathogen can hide. A few unvaccinated people will not have a significant effect, and there will always be a few who have impaired immune systems and cannot be vaccinated. But if too many people refuse to be vaccinated, the entire group can be endangered. Refusal to vaccinate has consequences for public health, and can literally kill nearby kids who are immune-compromised. There is a compelling public interest in vaccination.
Is there a similar compelling pubic interest in the acceptance of GMO foods? I don't think so. If people avoid GMO foods, I can think of no consequences for public health. The major consequences would be in the bottom line of companies like Monsanto, and of some in the food industry.
Do the finances of these companies constitute a public-health concern that would justify withholding information, to essentially fool customers into ingesting a particular product? No. If there are any ecological or public health ramifications that might constitute a compelling reason for widespread GMO ingestion, over the objection of customers, I'd like to hear them.
Until then, I remain adamantly in favor of GMO labeling.
