Should GMOs be labeled?

Should GMOs be labeled?

By Gwen Schanker

Whether organisms should be genetically modified has been a subject of debate since the 1970s, when scientists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer created the first recombinant DNA organism and transgenic plants emerged as the newest breakthrough in biotechnology. Genetic modification of crops allows for greater yields at a lower cost and reduction in impact on the environment. GMOs also have potential nutritional benefits, which could provide better food quality for the developing world. However, opponents fear undetermined long-term effects of consuming GMOs, as well as an overall decrease in biodiversity and a negative impact on surrounding non-GMO crops.

Despite controversy over the impact of genetic modification — on the environment, consumers, and the organisms themselves — GMO production has increased over the years, and today, the amount of genetically engineered soybeans and crops grown in the U.S. is estimated at more than 90%. The Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization, among others, have declared GMOs to be safe. However, the general public opinion is that genetically modified foods are a dangerous unknown, which creates a confusing framework for consumers.

A large part of this confusion is due to lack of information. Most genetically modified foods are not labeled, and consumers doing their weekly grocery shopping have little choice in whether they buy genetically engineered products or not. The question of whether products should be labeled is an integral part of the GMO debate, and has been especially prominent recently. In May, Vermont became the first state to require GMO labeling, excluding labeling for dairy products pending the passage of a bill in January 2015. Some companies, like Ben and Jerry’s and Target, are avoiding using GM ingredients until labeling laws have stabilized, while others, like Whole Foods, have committed to complete transparency when it comes to consumer information.

The basic argument for GMO labeling is that consumers have a right to know what goes into their food. Many labeling advocates don’t argue against GMOs themselves, just in favor of more information. However, opponents of labeling are concerned that labeling will only exacerbate people’s distrust in foods that are manipulated or processed in some way, and will create unnecessary fear of genetically modified products. In other words, opponents believe that because consumers don’t know enough about GMOs, they shouldn’t receive any further information.

Mandated labeling generally occurs only when there are potential health consequences involved (e.g. advisory labels that say “may contain nuts”). So far, GMOs have been proven safe for consumption, and the economic and environmental benefits they provide make them an important part of today’s grocery store shelves. Unnecessary fear mongering might push GMOs off the market, causing scientists to take several strides backward from previous advances in biotechnology.

That being said, consumers have a right to demand more information. Research shows that the public is in favor of labeling; a New York Times poll last July found that 93% of Americans want GM foods to be labeled. The debates over whether GM products should be sold and if they should be labeled go hand in hand, but they pose two separate questions. Consumers should be aware that, so far, there is no evidence that GMOs pose a risk to human health, but they should also know the process of genetic modification and which of the products they shop for contain GM ingredients. If labeling legislation is being pushed back because consumers don’t have a proper understanding of the issue, the answer is not to keep people in the dark but to tell them what they want to know — about GMOs, labeling, and the future of biotechnology.

Read more at: