Private Industry, the Medical Profession, and the Federal Government present almost convincing arguments for the non-labeling of GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods. I will present their arguments and my responses. First, though, what are GMO's?
According to www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/, GMO is the abbreviation for genetically modified organism. "A GMO is an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there." The World Health Organization defines GMO as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally."
ARGUMENT #1. Those promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are harmful to human health.
MY RESPONSE: The promoters do not want to admit that there have not been a lot of scientific studies done to determine if there is a potential for harm in the long run.
Nor do they mention a study published in the Current Microbiology Journal referred to in an article written by Sayer Ji, founder of www.greenmedinfo.com, posted on 12/15/2012. Ji states that this study found that glycophosphate, the active ingredient in Roundup, suppressed beneficial gastrointestinal bacteria of poultry in vitro. The pathogenic gastrointestinal bacteria, however, were found to be resistant to glycophosphate toxicity.
An article entitled "Genetically Modified Organisms Inject DNA into Intestinal Bacteria" (www.naturalnews.com, June 24, 2011) by T.M. Hartle refers to a study that seemed to indicate that GMO food consumed by humans transferred genetic material into the DNA of gastrointestinal bacteria. This article also refers to a number of animal studies in which the consumption of GMO foods had adverse effects on the animals.
There are a number of scientists who are very concerned about the possible long term ill effects of consuming GMOs. You can find more information about these concerns from an article by Jeffrey Smith in the August, 2004 issue of the Institute for Responsible Technology (www.responsible technology.org) entitled "Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk". He also has an informative DVD "Genetic Roulette-The Gamble of our Lives" (2012).
ARGUMENT #2. GMO promoters point out that GMOs have been deemed safe for human consumption by the following:
-American Association for the Advancement of Science
-American Medical Association
-World Health Organization
-National Academy of Sciences
-Royal Society in the U.K.
-National Academy of Sciences
MY RESPONSE: These same prestigious organizations would have backed DDT for agricultural use before it was banned in 1972 due to a public outcry. That outcry saved the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon from extinction and one may wonder how many humans would have gotten cancer from higher accumulations of DDT in their cells, if it had not been banned.
These authoritative organizations did not object to the artificial food coloring Red Dye #1, a suspected human carcinogen, banned in 1960.
Did they object to the following drugs as long as they were deemed safe for general use: MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned 2006), BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001), PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX (banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010)? These are the marketed drugs deemed unsafe for unrestricted use from 1997-2010.
The point is, just because the authorities say a chemical or biological agent is safe, doesn't make it so.
ARGUMENT #3: The GMO backers like to argue that Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.
MY RESPONSE: Why is land, water and fertilizer limited? Land is limited because the same class that is making millions from GMOs made millions more by constructing shopping malls and housing projects on perfectly fertile farm land all over this country. (According to American Farmland Trust at www.farmland.org/resources/fote/ between 1982 and 2007, 45,404,300 acres of U.S. agricultural land was converted to developed uses.) Water is limited because the Upper Class has made millions from factories that pollute the air with carbon, resulting in global warming which they don't feel they should have to spend any of their profits to mitigate. Plus, they have been sluggish about making automobiles burn less gasoline. Plus we all waste fresh water. Fertilizer is limited because we throw nutrient-rich organic waste into landfills instead of converting it to fertilizer. If the population continues to increase these problems are simply going to increase. If GMOs were perfectly safe and cheap and good for the environment, they would result in even greater population growth. That would result in more customers for the Upper Class, but overpopulation involves more problems than just hunger.
ARGUMENT #4. People who favor GMOs claim that food labeling would result in widespread panic.
MY RESPONSE: I see no basis for this claim. Most Americans are not that concerned about their health to be afraid of GMOs. An article at www.labelshechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/05/about-60-percent-pay-attention-to-nutrition-facts/ by Dr. Sanjay Gupta refers to a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that found that only 43.8 % of people pay attention to health claims on food labels.
ARGUMENT #5. GMO supporters claim that labeling would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.
MY RESPONSE: That claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food contains GMOs" on each food label. I suspect it is more likely that the supporters of GMOs fear that people will opt to buy products without that disclosure statement. Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. I think that is related to a "free market system", is it not? If I remember the law of supply and demand, greater demand for non-GMO products should result in more production of these products and eventually lower prices for same.
The GMO advocates never seem to mention Superweeds in stating their position. Why? Superweeds are weeds that have developed an immunity to Monsanto's Rodeo Roundup herbicide. They are tougher and bigger than their non-genetically modified relatives. They have been known to damage farm equipment. (For more information about Superweeds and Monsanto refer to www.lowerclasstruth.blogspot.com, #7, Section F.) According to www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,Superweeds (which require more herbicide to kill) have increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare. Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare. That has increased to $160/hectare. That extra cost has been passed on to consumers.
So how are GMOs saving consumers money? I think it's ironic that to avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat organic. Organic produce is more expensive than non-organic, unless one has the means to grow everything one needs . The irony is that people who are profiting the most from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to eat organically grown food.
Just like every other money-making scheme that threatens the health of the lower classes and/or threatens the Common Good, the GMO labeling question is a class issue. It is easier for the very rich to control and use the less economically fortunate masses when more lower class people are struggling with family health problems.