Graphics: Genetically Modified Foods – Is Labeling Important?

In December, Development Roast asked are genetically modified (GM) foods a friend or a foe? Proponents claim that GM crops can help alleviate poverty and hunger by producing better seed technologies that resist drought and pests. Dr Channapatna Prakash of Tuskegee University embodied this view in his millennial article for AgBioForum, the Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, entitled “Feeding a World of Six Billion.” Others argue that this is irrelevant since hunger is not related to a lack of food but inequality in its distribution, and that there are just too many possible side effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are unaccounted and untested for by private companies who develop them. In 2000, outspoken critics Miguel Altieri of University of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset of La Via Campesina gave their “10 reasons for why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world.” The following infographic from Visual.ly summarises some of the definitions and issues involved:

Perhaps the biggest concern lies in the lack of transparency in the business, especially in countries like the United States, where foods containing GMOs are not labelled as such. Companies that produce GMOs have fought hard to keep such labels off their products and it is not hard to see why. When the first genetically modified products hit the market the reception was cold. One such case is the Flavr Savr tomato that was developed by Calgene. The tomato was purposefully labelled as “genetically engineered” since the company saw the trait as a unique and profitable selling point. However, it aroused fear and outrage in consumers who refused to buy it. Due to this, and safety concerns about the crop, Flavr Savr was soon withdrawn from the market. GH Organics provides an excellent summary of this early tomato issue here.

From memory of such past events, companies know that genetic engineering is not seen by the public as a good thing. This is further backed up by more recent evidence. As the above infographic demonstrates, 53 percent of Americans say they would not buy foods containing genetically modified ingredients, and a recent vote in California revealed that more than four million of the state’s residents back a labeling law. This represents potentially huge losses for food companies if they were legally forced to reveal genetic modification, especially since GMOs now dominate the U.S. food market of such crops as soy, cotton and corn, as well as the food aid that the United States provides to developing nations:

Not all countries see quite such a grip of GMOs in their systems. The European pubic has long been against GM foods and the EU has for some time had in place mandatory GMO labeling. The same can be said for China, Australia and the East Asian tigers of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. In all, according to Just Label It, more than 40 countries require genetically modified materials to be labelled:

Many other countries are going a step further and banning the production and/or imports of GM foods altogether because of fears of negative health effects. In 2012, Russia banned imports of GM corn, Kenya outlawed all GMOs, and Peru instigated a ten year ban on GM seeds and foods. Even within the U.S., Washington State made recent news after San Juan County residents and farmers passed Initiative Measure No. 2012-4 to ban the growth of genetically modified organisms. 

So what is all the fuss about? Well, while outright bans represent too drastic a step for some, for many, labeling means transparency that allows consumers to make informed choices about something as vital and important as food. Not all agree, however. University of California, Berkeley Professor of Agriculture and Resource Economics David Zilberman argues that GMO labeling creates unnecessary stigma and fear mongering around something that has thus far been seen as fairly safe. This view does not take into consideration that, unlike in other fields such as pharmaceuticals, partly because of strong corporate influence in policy making circles, the burden of proof of lack of deleterious effects has not fallen on the companies that produce GMOs, but on under-funded public efforts. And politicians have even let damning evidence slide in a bid to allow GMO production. In his article in Mother Jones, Jon Luoma writes:

In its rush to approve genetically engineered food, the [U.S.] government ignored warnings from its own scientists about threats to human health and the environment.

However, negative evidence is growing and catching increasing attention. For example, a potentially hazardous virus gene was recently discovered in major GM crops and products that have been approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for commercial release for more than 20 years. If all the possible effects of genetic modification have not been considered and evidence suggest that harmful impacts are possible, shouldn’t consumers have the right to know when their food contains GMOs?

Like this post? Be sure to sign up at the top of this page for weekly email updates directly to your inbox.

Ioulia Fenton researches food and agriculture issues at INESAD.

For your reference:

Altieri M. & Rosset P. (2000) 10 Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security, Protect the Environment and Reduce Poverty in the Developing World, Third World Network.

Li T. (2012) GM Crops – Friend or Foe?, Development Roast, Dec 20, 2012.

Luoma J. R. (2000), Pandora’s Pantry, Mother Jones, Jan/Feb 2000, Vol. 25, Issue 1, p. 52.

Prakash C. S. (2000) Feeding a World of Six Billion, Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, Volume 2 , Number 3 & 4 , Article 13.

Thalen M. (2013) San Juan County Bans the Growing of GMOs, Examiner, Nov 7, 2012.

Zilberman D. (2012) Why Labeling of GMOs is Actually Bad for the People and the Environment, The Berkeley Blog.

 

Check Also

Energy = Modern Civilization²

By: Lykke E. Andersen* The World’s most famous equation is undoubtedly Einstein’s E=mc2, and while …

One comment

  1. All of you crack me up it is funny to see how all of the number have changed since 2013 showing that this is a 1 sided agenda drive false report. For me I do not care GMO, conventional, organic I purchase on price. Please just write the truth and use science not just your feelings. Until then you will not be taken serious.

    Steve

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: