What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Expanding on Janet's discussion of the power and politics of food labeling, what if American consumers saw this when they went to their local store to buy a can of tomato puree?
I suspect it would turn many people away, or at least prompt them to start questioning the extent to which we buy and consume GMO foods on a daily basis, and why and if this a problem in terms of health, nutrition, and the politics of food production.
So, if you want to know more, where do you start?
First, with the basic knowledge that while European countries and the European union has been guided philosohpically by the "precautionary principle," the United States has been guided in general by the principle of "substantial equivalence." In essence, these are two very different approaches to ideas and policies related to risk and food production and consumption, with the Europeans very wary of GMO food and Americans quite willing to eat GMO foods or oblivious and uninterested in the issue as a whole. I find it surprising that more Americans aren't interested at all in GMO questions and controversies, especially given that we produce and consume the vast majority of the world's GM crops.
With that in mind, it's fascinating to learn about how these diametrically opposed tacts came about. This article, although now almost 8 years old, provides an excellent analysis of the historical forces, in relation to food safety, risk, and regulation, that set Europe and the United States on distinct paths. These differences are also closely followed by the World Health Organization, which monitors food safety and policies towards GMO production and consumption around the globe.
For real time developments, a great virtual place to go is NYU Professor Marion Nestle's website www.whattoeat.com, which she spun out of her recent book. You'll see an entry from a few days ago that discusses a recent GAO report that highlights the marked lack of regulation and of regulatory coordination of GMO crops. For some time now, Nestle has been at the cutting edge of politics, nutrition, and food policy, offering astute analysis of America's peculiar, some would argue pathological, approach to eating.
Finally, for those of us who believe that GM labels are necessary for reasons of health, information, and consumer transparency, you can get involved at The Campaign, which is supported by a long list of organic producers.
Life Science
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Why do you believe that GM labels are necessary for reasons of health? More specifically, why should the method by which new foods are created (i.e. genetic engineering vs. traditional breeding) be the key factor in assessing their impact on health? Do you have any scientific reasons?
The Campaign website speaks alarmingly of how the US FDA doesn't require GM foods to be safety tested like new drugs and food additives. Please explain why a new food should be tested like a drug or a food additive if it was produced by genetic engineering, but not if it was produced by traditional breeding.
While you're at it, please consider this. Genetic engineering is nothing more than human-induced horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Every species on earth has been the subject of HGT at some point in its ancestry. That means that every food you've ever eaten, or ever will, is genetically modified.
Please note: I'm not claiming that any of this proves that GM foods are safe. I'm just asking you for a rational reason why man-made GM foods are (or reasonably could be) inherently less safe than 'natural' GM foods or artificially bred foods.
Posted by: qetzal | January 14, 2009 10:56 AM
The precautionary principle has largely been discarded by rational folks. You can use the precautionary principle to argue not getting out of bed in the morning. Or to not have gone to bed in the first place. Every action has potentially dire consequences. You can never prove something 100% safe. All you can do is fail to ever find a danger in it. And so far, GMO food has fallen into that category.
Go figure.
Posted by: factician | January 14, 2009 10:32 PM
oOo veryy god
Posted by: netlog | January 19, 2009 3:20 PM
How do you feel about a label that says "Genetically enhanced food" if say the nutritional profile has been improved?
Posted by: D | February 2, 2009 12:08 PM
Saying that it has been genetically modified is useless unless it says what it has been modified for. The appropriate info is far too large for a label, though. I'd like to see a barcode that I could, say, scan with my iPhone for more info. If the tomatoes were modified for high anthocyanins, for example, I'd certainly choose them :)
Posted by: Anastasia | February 8, 2009 2:50 PM
Sigh... do you really want to eat anything that has part of an ecoli gene in it? Or a very commonly used cauliflower tumor? Here is a documentary that explains more about how gene-splicing is used, this is NOT like hybridization - they are using bacteria and viruses to achieve the results they want:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
Even if you don't care, people have the right to make the choice not to eat genetically modified food without having to totally avoid traditional grocery stores - it should at least be listed in the ingredients. Do the research yourself, there are many studies that these foods affect the mortality and fertility in lab animals.
Posted by: Cari | April 17, 2009 2:45 PM
The precautionary principle has largely been discarded by rational folks. You can use the precautionary principle to argue not getting out of bed in the morning. Or to not have gone to bed in the first place. Every action has potentially dire consequences. You can never prove something 100% safe. All you can do is fail to ever find a danger in it. And so far, GMO food has fallen into that category.
Posted by: sicak izle | April 22, 2009 6:21 PM
categoryi guzel yere acmıssın böle devam et basarıyorsun !
Posted by: çet | June 7, 2009 8:48 AM