What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them If GE crops are considered safe by most scientists, why not simply label the produce from these crops and let people decide for themselves? Most people like to know what they are eating and make their own choices.
I am a label reader. If there is an excess of added sugar or too many ingredients with names that I don't recognize then I don't buy the product. Not all information, however, is useful.
A few months ago our local food coop began posting red "consumer alert" signs that say, "Conventional foods that contain corn, soy, or canola may be genetically engineered." I find these signs more annoying than helpful. It is a little bit like the warnings posted on science textbooks in some states that say, "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact".
Neither statement says anything informative about the state of our food nor the creation of our universe. With no specific hazards associated with GE foods or evolution, how can a consumer use these statements to make a more informed choice about the risk to their health or to their faith in God?
The National Research Council Committee states that attempts to assess food safety based solely on the process are scientifically unjustified. Rather than adding a general label about the process with which a plant variety was developed, it would make more sense to label food so that consumers are informed about what is actually
in or on the food. But this, too, is not necessarily helpful. For some people it may be informative to read a label that says, "may contain traces of carbamate pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals" or "may contain trace amounts of purified Bacillus thuringiensis protein, which kill Leptidoptera
(a class of insects)." But is it helpful to most consumers who are not familiar with the science?
Here is another example. If we carry forward with labeling the product, then organic produce treated with rotenone, a "natural" pesticide favored by some organic farmers, would need to be labeled with the following, "may contain trace amounts of rotenone--chronic exposure can cause damage to liver and kidney" (Occupational Safety and Health Administration ). Organic super sweet corn would require this label: "Carries a genetic mutation induced by radiation mutagenesis, resulting in the presence of a mutant protein." Organically grown papaya would need to be marked: "may contain vast amounts of papaya ringspot viral RNA and protein".
These labels are so ominous that it is not likely that many people would feel comfortable eating these organic fruits and vegetables. Still, there is no evidence that any of these food products are hazardous. After all, we have been eating sweet corn and organic papaya safely for years.
It seems to me that if the labeling statement does not help with safety interventions or inform consumer choice, it does not serve the purpose. It only confuses and unnecessarily alarms people.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Hear hear!
I have some sympathy for those consumers want to know if a product contains GM ingredients, and feel entitled to the information. But I think the real issue is the one you highlight - on what basis do we decide which information must be included on labels?
If simple consumer outcry is sufficient, especially by a minority of consumers, it creates all kind of potential problems. Anyone who can get enough consumers worked up about something could force manufacturers to add scary-sounding words to their labels, regardless of whether there's any actual risk.
IMO, the drawbacks of that approach far outweigh any benefits.
Posted by: qetzal | January 27, 2009 2:40 PM
Scientific integrity is very important to me. GMO food have been more thoroughly tested than any other foods. Any person or company that advertises that their food is GMO is at best a huckster. I avoid all food that is advertised as GMO free, including all organic.
Posted by: Mike | January 28, 2009 9:23 PM
ty nice txt you home page vey nice
Posted by: youtube | February 3, 2009 4:33 AM
It can easily to the mad state with ridiculous level of labelling that people no longer read. Open a typical electronic product manual (even a battery operated one) and get pages of warnings about use in rain, disposition, use in bathtub and countless other trivia. The result is that people skip all those pages (and perhaps much of the rest of the manual as well).
Posted by: jay | February 3, 2009 11:15 AM
Mike: While GMO food may be perfectly safe, consumers might have reasons other than personal safety concerns to oppose buying it. Whether or not it's safe, a consumer might reasonably believe that genetic modification of food products is undesirable from an environmental or moral perspective, and therefore wish to avoid them.
I'm reminded of the kerfluffle over rBGH-free milk. Labelled rBGH-free milk is required to carry a note to the effect that the FDA has found no difference between milk from cows treated with rBGH and cows not (useful if you trust the FDA on this). However, rGBH is banned in a number of countries due not to any effect on human health, but because it increases health problems such as mastitis in cattle. Therefore, however it affected them, a shopper might prefer rGBH-free milk because they feel the use of rGBH constitutes animal cruelty.
This isn't to say that GMO-containing food should necessarily be required to be labelled as such, although in general, I think there's a major framing argument to be made for chemical farming to be denormalized by the use of mandatory labelling for non-organic products. However, labelling a food as GMO-free doesn't show a lack of scientific integrity.
Even in the abscence of specific hazards, the information can inform food choices based on greater concerns.
Posted by: G.E. Wilker | March 9, 2009 4:31 PM
good sites
Posted by: KELEBEK | March 12, 2009 8:59 AM
While I agree that the sign at your local food co-op is may cause more problems that it fixes, until there is some form of labelling, what can you do?
Your suggestion of a label such as: "may contain traces of carbamate pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals" is somewhat of a straw-man argument. No labels ever go that far. When did you last see a chocolate bar with a label "May contain traces of peanuts. Peanuts may cause severe allergic reactions, possibly leading to death". (Ok, you do see that kind of thing on cigarette packets here in Australia).
Simply labelling GMO products as such - "This product may/does contain genetically modified material" - should not be a problem. Most of my friends probably wouldn't eat it, but they're a bunch of hippies. Most of the population wouldn't care - most of the population doesn't read labels.
Also, my understanding is that "no specific hazards associated with GMOs" is not correct - GM bacteria have been linked to Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome, which is potentially fatal. The GMOs were in the process, not the product, in this case, but it shows that at least in some cases, testing is no-where near adequate..
Posted by: naught101 | March 14, 2009 12:25 AM
@naught101
You apparently misunderstand what is meant by "no specific hazards associated with GMOs." The point is that it's not the method of modification that makes things safe or unsafe. It's the nature of the modification.
If introducing a certain gene into a food crop creates a hazard, then that will be true whether the gene is introduced using recombinant DNA or by standard genetic crosses and hybridizations.
Also, your example of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome is pretty bogus. Your own link shows that it's not even clear that the modified bacteria were the root cause of the problem, since the company simultaneously started cutting corners on their purification process. And even if the bacteria were a direct cause, it was because they overproduced tryptophan. If so, the same hazards would exist if the bacteria had been generated by genetic matings with other bacteria. Once again, it's not the process that matters, it's the products.
Posted by: qetzal | March 22, 2009 1:38 AM
Anyone who *really* doesn't want to end up eating GMO food should move to the UK, there's none of it over here :)
Unless you count decades of selective breeding as 'genetic modification' which technically it is...
"This product has been selectively bred for thousands of years by human farmers, and thus may have introduced mutations of a completely unknown nature"
Posted by: Lab Rat | May 17, 2009 4:01 AM
Individuals who received their PhD from a U.S. institution between May 1, 2008 and August 31, 2009 in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Science, or a closely related field are eligible to apply. Applicants must obtain commitments from between one and three prospective hosts/mentors. Hosts/mentors must not be at the same institution as the one granting the PhD. The CIFellows website provides resources for both prospective applicants and host/mentors to announce their interests and availability.
Posted by: sevişmek | May 19, 2009 4:33 AM
Computer Engineering, Information Science, or a closely related field are eligible to apply. Applicants must obtain commitments from between one and three prospective hosts/mentors. Hosts/mentors must not be at the same institution as the one granting the PhD. The CIFellows website provides resources for both prospective applicants and host/mentors to announce their interests and availability.
Posted by: sevişme sahnesi | June 21, 2009 12:16 PM
ty my admin niceee !!
Posted by: haberler | June 23, 2009 7:38 AM