Congress has approved a bill that will require some disclosure of the use of genetically modified organisms in American food products. It’s far from a full victory for consumers’ right to know what is in their food.
It’s important to consider that GMO labels carry the implication that there is something inherently wrong with genetically modified foods. Numerous studies have shown there is not. In fact, in some instances, genetic modifications have helped stave off starvation and disease in developing countries.
At the same time, however, GMO labeling can be a way to alert consumers to foods produced with a heavy reliance on pesticides. This can be helpful information. In this sense, Congress’ bill falls short because it allows food manufacturers to use alternatives to labels, such as QR codes, which few consumers would likely access. It also preempts labeling laws like Maine’s.
Because of its weak requirements and its override of state law, Maine’s congressional delegation — Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King and U.S. Reps. Chellie Pingree and Bruce Poliquin — were right to vote against this legislation.
As the debate over GMO labeling continues, the focus should remain on real concerns and not overblown fears about safety.
More than 100 Nobel laureate scientists signed onto a letter last month urging Greenpeace to stop its anti-GMO campaign. The environmental group has long called upon leaders and citizens to accept the scientific evidence that shows that climate change is real and dangerous. Why, then, the scientists wrote, won’t Greenpeace accept the science on GMOs?
“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production,” the letter said. “There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”
GMOs serve a variety of purposes, from making crops drought-resistant to accelerating their growth. But the most common genetic modification makes crops — especially corn, soy and alfalfa — resistant to herbicides, allowing farmers to use substantial quantities of them to keep pests away. That means GMO labels can be indirect signals to consumers of pesticide use and a label requirement is one of the few tools states have for this purpose.
And there’s good reason for consumers to want to know about the use of pesticides in producing their food. Last year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research said glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the world, was “ probably carcinogenic to humans.”
It’s far from an admission that food with genetically engineered ingredients is unsafe, but it’s another reason consumers might want to know more about the origins of their food. Reasonable label requirements are one way to provide that additional information.
Maine has a labeling law, but it does not go into effect until five contiguous states have such regulations. Connecticut has a similar law. Vermont’s law, which does not require action by other states, took effect on July 1. An attempt to enact a law that would require labeling in Maine regardless of what other states do failed in the Legislature this year.
President Barack Obama should veto the GMO labeling law that has emerged from Congress. Then, scientific evidence should guide the debate that unfolds.
