Why GMO labeling is a good idea

Great Debates
41

Is it? What actual, scientific benefit does it serve to put these labels on? What nutritional benefit is there between GMO and non-GMO that consumers really need to have in order to make informed choices? I’m asking an honest question. To me, this (anti-GMO stuff) is similar to the anti-vaxers, but maybe I’m missing something here.

Do you have any examples of this? Ones backed up by good science? Doing a quick Google search…well, I get a lot of loony eco sites, to be honest. It’s difficult to wade through the chaff and find, well, anything that looks to be backed up by real science in here. Fortunately you are making the claims and assertions so I’ll leave it to you or to those who think there is a real requirement to put GMO labeling on products.

Is it?

42

Lost in all the anti-labeling hysteria are some important realities. First is that GMO and the labeling thereof is a complex subject and simplistic arguments against mandatory labeling of some types of GMO is not an effective argument against mandatory labeling of any of it. Second and related to this is that despite all the naysaying about how stupid it is and how it can’t be done, the European Union is already doing it.

And the fact that doing it has greatly pissed off the American food lobbyists illustrates just how politicized the anti-labeling crusade has become.

And related to that is the fact that the food industry and their lobbyists are not exactly a trustworthy bunch. Thanks to lobbying, additives like Olestra, BVO (brominated vegetable oil), azodicarbonamide, synthetic hormones (rBGH and rBST) and many others have all been FDA approved yet they are banned in many other countries, all for good reason. This is not to say that any particular GMOs are necessarily unsafe or necessarily even distinguishable from non-GMOs, but we don’t necessarily know and may not know for a long time, and prior history doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. I see no issue with the EU approach of precautionary regulation on use and scientifically guided labeling requirements.

And safety isn’t the only issue. I mentioned earlier that diet pop contains just a fraction of a calorie. Yet tentative studies appear to show that due to complex biological interactions not well understood, diet soft drinks may not prevent weight gain as one might expect, and might be as bad or maybe even worse than sugar drinks. Perhaps it would be wise to stop being so arrogantly cavalier about the effects, or lack thereof, of the crap we’re putting in our food, and at least allow consumers to be informed – whether food manufacturers and their lobbyists like it or not.

43

So then are you in favor of labeling all left-handed produced food now, or do we wait for Spain to do it first?

44

Exactly the same argument is frequently made by antivaxers. “You can’t trust Big Pharma!” Never mind that a great deal of evidence validating the safety of vaccines (and GMO foods) has been developed in non-industry studies. If you can point fingers at an industry that has unpopular aspects and is demonizable (while ignoring findings of organizations like the WHO, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science and many more), science can be swept under the rug.

I almost spit up my bag of GMO corn chips reading wolfpup’s comment about “not exactly a trustworthy bunch”. If you want to learn more about a shifty, untrustworthy, lying-through-their-teeth bunch, check out the sordid history of anti-GMO research and its promoters, including alleged scientists like Seralini, Howard Vlieger (who co-authored a paper alleging pigs were harmed by GMO feed, without bothering to reveal to readers that he runs a business selling non-GMO feed) and Don Huber (who lectures about a dread disease he says is spread by genetic modification, only without a shred of actual evidence or willingness to let other researchers check out his alleged pathogen) - not to mention specious, scaremongering claims routinely promoted by the anti-GMO crowd.

“We don’t necessarily know” is a version of “Science has been wrong before!”, an argument used by climate change deniers and pseudoscience advocates of all kinds.

“the anti-labeling hysteria”

Ah, so any arguments against government-mandated labeling are “hysteria”. Nice example of well-poisoning.

By the way, “The European Union does it” is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

45

Which “some types” of GMOs should be labeled, and what is the health benefit?

Who here has argued that it can’t be done, or are you tilting at straw men?

Bad science and incompetent risk assessment in Europe is no excuse for emulating it here.

No one here has been able to show that GMO safety is an issue, especially with respect to real food safety issues, of which there are many.

46

I nominate “tentative studies appear to show” for the weasel word hall of fame.

47

I was hoping to wrap up my participation with the last post as this is not, frankly, a hot-button issue with me except to the extent that I support the principle of the consumer’s right to know, and harbor a well-justified deep suspicion of Big Industry – and to anyone who thinks such suspicion is paranoia, I cite decades of lies from the tobacco industry along with such a caseload of poisonings of food, air, and water in the name of unrelenting profit that it would take a very large warehouse just to store the case histories.

But to respond to a few of the comments …

If the entire EU bans or regulates something along with Australia, Canada, and other major countries, I would suggest it might be an idea to take a close look at the evidence that persuaded them instead of sticking with staunch denial.

Anti-vaxers want to ban important and potentially lifesaving medicine. This isn’t about “banning”, it’s about neutral labeling. Your analogy is misplaced.

Climate change deniers use it falsely and deceptively, often accompanied by shamelessly fudged data, and applying it to situations where we absolutely do know enough to guide policy. I use it in a context where there is a considerable history of premature substance approvals and/or lack of adequate regulation and industry pressure to conform to their interests. Sometimes “we don’t necessarily know” is actually true.

So a business magazine scours the legal landscape of Europe and comes up with a few cases that sound silly, of which, on closer inspection, it turns out that half of them are entirely made up, and many of the others are actually justified. Broadly speaking the major distinction I draw between the US and the EU is, respectively, the extent to which public policy is determined by commercial interests and their lobbyists, and the extent to which it’s determined by the public interest.

You might want to look up the side effects of some of those additives I listed.

I take no sides on that particular issue. To the best of my knowledge the diet soft drink studies are indeed tentative, and they appear to show something that seems hard to explain. Meanwhile I continue to enjoy moderate amounts of Coke Zero on the off chance that it may better help keep me from getting fat in my old age than the stuff with about half a pound of sugar in each can. Thanks to labeling laws, at least I know what’s in it, and if I come across new research with new information, I can act accordingly.

48

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
By the way, “The European Union does it” is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I have to say that the assertion that the EU does it is one of the least compelling arguments I’ve seen. :stuck_out_tongue:

49

[QUOTE=wolfpup]
If the entire EU bans or regulates something along with Australia, Canada, and other major countries, I would suggest it might be an idea to take a close look at the evidence that persuaded them instead of sticking with staunch denial.
[/QUOTE]

Only if there is a compelling reason why they banned it. As you’ve yet to come up with a cite clearly showing the science behind the assertion that it needs to be banned or regulated, simply saying that the EU et al does something is kind of an appeal to authority. WHY did they ban or regulate it? Because the science is there? If so, show me the money. If not then perhaps they did it for more political reasons.

50

There’s just nothing better than a good Olestra binge.

51

So show us this compelling evidence. Why are you being so coy about it?

The entire EU bans people from saying that less than 6 million Jews dies in the Holocaust, along with with Australia, Canada, and other major countries.

Presumably you believe that the US should also imprison or deport people for contradicting the official state-approved history?

The entire EU makes it an offence to say that they dislike Koreans, along with with Australia, Canada, and other major countries.

Presumably you believe that the US should also imprison or deport people for stating that they dislike cultural specific groups?

The EU, Australia, Canada, and other major countries do all sorts of crazy things. That doesn’t make them right. It’s blatant argument from popularity.

52

He probably does agree with the EU, Australia, and Canada on those things; he’s been ardently defending laws against “hate speech” over in this thread.

53

Totalitarian thought legislation and mandatory badging of undesirables.

That has not historically proven to be a good combination.

54

I guess I don’t have any problem with some kind of regulated and enforceable standard for labeling food “non-GMO” (by “enforceable” I mean the way you can’t say “Fat Free” on your product and then pack it with pure lard for that extra yummy mouth-feel). That way, the people who get all up in arms about such things can carefully buy only GMO Free! food, and the rest of us can buy whatever we feel like (whether it’s the eee-vil GMO!!! food, or merely food that humans have been screwing around with via selective breeding for the past 10,000 years), while continuing to rely on Big Government to keep us safe from Big Business putting lead in our oatmeal or feeding us the next thalidomide or whatever.

55

I believe the concern is not in the health ramifications of GMO produce directly, but in the increase of side effects of additional pesticides and herbicides used on GMO crops. With the invention of Roundup Ready corn, farmers can now douse their fields in Roundup without harming their yields.This leads to potential increases in the consumption of such chemicals on the consumer side. Additionally, these huge volumes of herbicide being dispensed have created superweeds resistant to many modern herbicides.This could be an environmental disaster eventually. I agree that foreign DNA likely does nothing to consumers, but the net result of GMO foods may indeed be negative.

56

Some GM crops can support what you and I might call poor farming practices. But it depends on the crop. Bt corn has resulted in a huge decrease in pesticide use. See 10.1126/science.341.6147.728 and 10.1126/science.341.6147.730 .

I wrote elsewhere about a year ago:

57

Ruken, would you be able to produce similar statistics on the herbicide glyphosate? Roundup. I can imagine that while pesticide use may be down I’m curious personally if the same is true of herbicide use.

58

Not off-hand. That old post happened to coincide with my reading an old issue of Science with the articles in question. I suspect it’s increased for glyphosate. I’ll see what I can see before the sleep rays hit me.

59

And “he” shows up just for a moment, just to say that the accusations in the preceding post are just absolute total nonsense from first to last. Not a single one is correct. As I cited in the very thread that the poster references, the conviction of notorious anti-Semite Ernst Zundel was overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada precisely because it was deemed that his Holocaust denial in itself was constitutionally protected. It’s a hate crime in Germany for obvious reasons, but not in Canada, notwithstanding hate speech laws. The other points mentioned are just hyperbolic nonsense trying once again to frame some kind of raging libertarian anti-government argument, and not a single one is supportable by fact.

60

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-june/pesticide-use-peaked-in-1981,-then-trended-downward,-driven-by-technological-innovations-and-other-factors.aspx#.VuI-E_krLIU
I see herbicide use peaking in the 80s, but that plot only goes to 2008, so we may be above that again.

But that’s for all herbicides; glyphosate use has increased very much:
https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2011&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L&disp=Glyphosate

That’s not entirely on “Roundup Ready” crops, but I expect most of it is.