Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?

[metis]

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

Yes, and it's sometimes referred to as "buyer beware", which is a fundamental approach within capitalism. However, without labels, how can a "buyer beware"?

 

[Penumbra]

Foods are almost always modified to be more cost-effective. Not more nutritious. They're not usually proven to be safe, and they're usually modified to be resistant to pesticides like Round-up.

Personally, I try not to buy any gmo foods. And if it's not labeled, I'll assume it's gmo and not buy it either.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, as the Scientific American article (in post #9) notes, mandatory labeling of GM foods apparently drives up prices for all food products (presumably due mainly to the necessity of increased record-keeping and analysis of products), and, further, as the example of the EU shows, mandatory labeling induces producers and manufacturers to simply stop offering GM products because the imposed labeling leads consumers to read "GMO" as poison. (After all, why should the government require the label if there isn't something dangerous about eating "GMO" foods?) This can only lead to the curtailment of research and development of GM foods that provide higher yields, are vitamin- and nutrient-enhanced, and require less water, pesticides and herbicides.

I've seen the articles but I've failed to see any article that states there is a significant increase in any food product. Many companies in the past here that followed the GMO labeling simply upcharged the food baled non-gmo. I agree its stupid but I don't think there are any disastrous effects if it is required.

 

[Milton Platt]

Interestingly, just this week, a coalition of 70 "food safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy organizations and food corporations," apparently headed by the advocacy organization Center for Food Safety, sent US Senators a letter urging them to vote against a new mandatory GM food labeling law. The letter lists 5 reasons why the coalition opposes the bill, the most important of which would seem to be #2:

A VAST NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GE FOODS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY LABELING -- Either intentionally, or through poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel definition of “bioengineering” under the bill would exclude from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with genetic engineering, including those where the “modification” is “found in nature,” those in which technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material, and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called “gene-editing” techniques. In fact, 99% of all GMO food COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content, it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.​

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/gmo-labeling-to-senateoppose62916_29341.pdf

I'd say this good enough reason to oppose this bill.

My question is whether there is any rational reason to require the labeling of foods that are, or are made from ingredients that are in some part, "genetically modified"--though exactly what that term means these days seems to be unclear. That's one of the big problems with mandating that a label have "GMO" or "GE" on it.

Of course, every food item on grocery store shelves is made of ingredients whose genome has been altered greatly by humans. Conventional breeding and hybridization methods modify the genetic code of the foods we eat in much larger and more uncertain ways than do rDNA techniques.

Four years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement assuring us that:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

The statement goes on to note the testing and approval process that GM plants are subjected to and must pass in the US.

The Genetic Literacy Project has created an infographic quoting 10 esteemed scientific associations from around the world asserting the safety of genetic modified crops for human consumption: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

GLP has also compiled a list “10 Reasons why we need crop biotechnology,” some of which might be arguable or at least fail to tell the whole story about the consequences of genetically engineered crops: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf If you wish to present evidence and argue to the contrary to any of these items, please do.

Nevertheless, for the government to require that foods be labeled "GMO" or "GE" overtly suggests that there must be some reason to be concerned about the safety or nutritional content of GM foods for consumption. And provoking such anxiety among consumers is one of the primary objections that manufacturers have to mandatory labeling, which raises First Amendment issues. The Court has always understood the First Amendment as not only protecting against the government suppressing speech, but also protecting against the government compelling speech.

In Grocery Manufacturers Association v. Sorrel, a case challenging Vermont's mandatory genetic engineering labeling law, which goes into effect today (and which would be usurped by the federal law that the Center for Food Safety opposes), plaintiffs argue (inter alia) that the law compels manufacturers to engage in speech against their best interests, prohibits them from making statements about their products that they do wish to make, is impermissibly vague in the terminology it uses uses and requires (foods made from plants that have been subjected to certain hybridization methods are also deemed "genetically engineered" by Vermont's law), and that the labeling requirement is not rational, having nothing to do with the either the safety or nutritional content of the food. The district court's order on defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction: http://cases.justia.com/federal/dis...ce/5:2014cv00117/24226/95/0.pdf?ts=1430246378

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

Yes. I believe it is rational for people to want to know as much as possible about how the food they consume has been altered. I agree that regular hybridizing also changed the genome of plants, but in a much different way. Hybridizing is the mixing of plant genes across a species to produce specific cultivars, generally. It does not insert virus, bacteria, or animal genes into the plant cells. There is no comparison between the two.

I am not completely opposed to genetic manipulation. I can see the advantages that have already taken place as far as disease and pesticide resistance, etc. The problem I see with it is we are letting corporations which are guided primarily by a profit motive to make these decisions for us.

 

[Nous]

Good grief, even if you disagree I'd have thought you could have grasped a basic argument by now. Apparently not though...

The argument is that the risk is unknown, and also unknowable.

False. The risks of consuming GM foods are better known and more knowable than are the risks of consuming foods whose genomes have been modified by conventional breeding, hybridization and radiation methods.

 

[Nous]

I've seen the articles but I've failed to see any article that states there is a significant increase in any food product. Many companies in the past here that followed the GMO labeling simply upcharged the food baled non-gmo. I agree its stupid but I don't think there are any disastrous effects if it is required.

The predicted increase in costs for consumers were calculated as a result of mandatory labeling (presumably due to requirements for record-keeping and analysis of foods, and perhaps the higher costs of raising non-GM foods--e.g., some of which require more water and produce lower yields).

 

[Milton Platt]

False. The risks of consuming GM foods are better known and more knowable than are the risks of consuming foods whose genomes have been modified by conventional breeding, hybridization and radiation methods.

The risk of consumption is not the only risk associated with GM foods............
There is an inherent environmental risk involved. We can only assess the immediate risks to a degree. We cannot assess future unknown situations.

 

[Nous]

Yes. I believe it is rational for people to want to know as much as possible about how the food they consume has been altered.

Then why pick on GM foods? How much do you know about how non-GM foods have been altered through breeding, hybridization and radiation?

 

[Nous]

The risk of comsumption is not the only risk associated with GM foods............

What risks are you referring to that non-GM foods do not have?

 

[Nous]

Yes, and it's sometimes referred to as "buyer beware", which is a fundamental approach within capitalism. However, without labels, how can a "buyer beware"?

What's rational about picking on GM foods to for mandatory "Buyer Beware" labels? Why not require labels for all the foods soaked in pesticides?

 

[Nous]

Foods are almost always modified to be more cost-effective.

I am unaware of any food plant genetically modified specifically to be more cost-effective.

Not more nutritious.

Golden Rice, for example.

They're not usually proven to be safe

GM foods are proven to be no more risky to eat than food whose genomes are modified by conventional breeding, hybridization and radiation.

and they're usually modified to be resistant to pesticides like Round-up.

Thus eliminating the need to douse foods and the environment with more toxic pesticides.

Personally, I try not to buy any gmo foods. [/QUOTE]So obviously you do not need a mandatory labeling law in order to do that. Excellent.

 

[Milton Platt]

What risks are you referring to that non-GM foods do not have?

The risk of introducing genes into the plant that are not from another similar plant, such as viral, bacterial, and animal genes. That does not hapen with plant hybridization. Hybridization is selective breeding of plants.

We cannot know what future consequences may arise from GM plants and animals. When we plant GM plants in an open field, the pollen drifts to adjacent areas and can influence plants it was not intended to influence. How can we possibly see hundreds of years down the road and assess those future risks?

I personally don't think eating the plants is the primary problem. We have been using GM corn, wheat, and soy beans for many years.

 

[Augustus]

False. The risks of consuming GM foods are better known and more knowable than are the risks of consuming foods whose genomes have been modified by conventional breeding,

Exhibit A (conventional breeding) has 5000+ years of evidence based on widespread, long-term, high dimensionality real world 'trials'.
Exhibit B (GMO) has 20 years of evidence, much of it based on limited, short-term, low dimensionality, atomised trials.


Is there any rational reason to believe B is less risky than A? Surely you do believe in such an overwhelming weight of evidence, don't you? I'd even have a modicum of respect for your opinion if you said 'no more risky than', but you actually claim it is less risky.

Jesus wept.

 

[Nous]

The risk of introducing genes into the plant that are not from another similar plant

What do you mean by "similar plant"?

such as viral, bacterial, and animal genes.

Cite all the examples you know of this happening with a genetically modified plant food. (Everyone should indeed be deathly afraid of eating animals.)

We cannot know what future consequences may arise from GM plants

But more is known about the gene sequences, amino acid sequences of and proteins produced by these genes in genetically engineered foods than is known about foods whose genomes are modified by conventional breeding, hybridization and radiation methods. Right?

When we plant GM plants in an open field, the pollen drifts to adjacent areas and can influence plants it was not intended to influence.

Drifting pollen is not unique GM plants. Right?

I personally don't think eating the plants is the primary problem. We have been using GM corn, wheat, and soy beans for many years.

So you know of no rational reason to require mandatory labels of GM foods.

 

[Nous]

Exhibit A (conventional breeding) has 5000+ years of evidence based on widespread, long-term, high dimensionality real world 'trials'.

And plenty of people have died from eating them. Not one person or other animal is known to have died or developed any illness due to eating a GM food.

So you cannot state any rational reason for requiring mandatory labels of GM foods?

 

[Augustus]

And plenty of people have died from eating them. Not one person or other animal is known to have died or developed any illness due to eating a GM food.

So you cannot state any rational reason for requiring mandatory labels of GM foods?

Again, risks to the ecosystem are far more important than risks to any individual.

The main risks of consuming gmo, is that they must actually be growing for you to consume them.

This is the great unknown.

 

[Nous]

Again, risks to the ecosystem are far more important than risks to any individual.

You haven't cited any evidence that growing GM foods poses any greater (or different) "risks to the ecosystem" than any other plant foods do. Right?

 

[Milton Platt]

Foods are almost always modified to be more cost-effective. Not more nutritious. They're not usually proven to be safe, and they're usually modified to be resistant to pesticides like Round-up.

Personally, I try not to buy any gmo foods. And if it's not labeled, I'll assume it's gmo and not buy it either.

Ummm....Roundup is not a pesticide

 

[metis]

What's rational about picking on GM foods to for mandatory "Buyer Beware" labels? Why not require labels for all the foods soaked in pesticides?

Largely because there are many people who are suspicious about GMO's and want to know if they're buying them, and if we operate on the basic capitalistic principle of "buyer beware", they should have a right to know that which they want to know. If a groundswell is for knowing which pesticides are being used, then I certainly have no problem with those being labeled as well, plus they can be avoided by shopping at organic stores.

 

[Milton Platt]

You haven't cited any evidence that growing GM foods poses any greater (or different) "risks to the ecosystem" than any other plant foods do. Right?

Nobody is funding that kind of research. The only research really happening is by companies with a vested interest in selling GMO products. Plus those studies will take decades to do.