“Urrg!” — The sound get donkey! made upon reading the following headline…
Bush opposes labeling genetically engineered food
Here’s my favorite quote:
“Mandatory labeling will only frighten consumers,” he said during a breakfast speech Monday at the BIO 2002 conference. “Labeling implies that biotechnology products are unsafe.”
No, Tommy, labeling just implies that the food contains genetically modified ingredients. If the stuff is actually safe, that should confuse no one.
This distaste for labelling wouldn’t have anything to do with Ag secretary, Anne Venneman’s, corporate ties, would it? Or could it be the fact that the organization Thompson was delivering the speech to is a PR front for the biotech industry?
But what difference should that make? Any supporter of “sound science” knows that a study that indicates GM foods aren’t safe is junk science anyway. I still don’t understand why the great-big biotech industries so fear those itty bitty labels.
For some super fun take a look at
http://www.labelthis.org/labels.html
before your next visit to the supermarket. Or better yet, only spend your grocery money at socially responsible chains such as Whole Foods Market.
Comment by Marc | 6/11/2002
Isn’t interesting that the current administration is vehemently opposed to any cloning (which is essentially genetic modification) for humans, but the idea of a label on the food we put in our body is a non issue?
So fucking what, a label induces fear?!? If people are scared of genetially modified food maybe you should do more studies to prove that is is safe!
Comment by Palmer Haas | 6/11/2002
If GM foods are perfectly safe, then there is no need for the government to force producers to label their products as GM. The information is meaningless. It would simply be construed as a victory for the anti-biotech forces.
I can understand forcing producers to label their products if a certain characteristic of said product poses a safety risk. Since GM poses no safety risk, there is no government interest justifying such a requirement.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/11/2002
Whoa…what?? “GM poses no safety risk”? My apologies, Owen, but I must have missed the big announcement from the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan proclaiming proof of GMO safety. Could you point me to a web site which might help solidify your claims? Oh yes…a website that doesn’t begin with ‘www.monsanto…’. Thank you.
I find it amazing that the Right will dismiss long-term Global Warming data with a knee-jerk ‘Inconclusive!’ while simultaneously proclaiming genetic modification as completely safe. Long-term data concerning GMO? Non-existent.
Comment by Marc | 6/11/2002
I cannot prove a negative; I can merely cite the fact that no credible research has shown any risk associated with GM foods. As for “long term research,” I simply point to the fact that American foods have been genetically-altered for some time, with no adverse side-effects. That’s long term, although not in labortory setting.
And if you want someone to vouch for the idea that the data shows biotechnology to be safe, how about the National Academy of Sciences? They say (in a 1987 report, and reiterated in a 2000 report) that there is no greater risk with GM foods than with cross-breeding, which has been done in agriculture for centuries:
“point 1: There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.
point 2: The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-enginerred organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods.”
While stressing that more research is needed (as the academy is wont to do) to assess potential risks, the NAS concludes:
“The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market are unsafe to eat a a result of genetic modification.”
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/8.html#pagetop
Without evidence of any health risks, there is no compelling government interest to force producers to label their products. It would be an unecessary expense and a misuse of government authority.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/11/2002
One more thing - this May 2002 GAO report also says that GM foods are safe:
“A report issued in June 200 by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization supports the scientists’ and regulators’ views about the infeasibility of identifying long-term health affects from GM foods. The report states that, in general, little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods, and that identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods. The report also states that epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the heath effects of GM foods from the many undesireable effects of conventional foods, which according to scientists include the effects of consuming cholesterol and fats. Accordingly, the report concludes that the identification of long-term effects specificially attributatble to GM foos is highly unlikely.”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02566.pdf
So much for “long term data.”
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/11/2002
Here’s the deal for me. As a consumer, I don’t want to eat this stuff. Period. Whether studies show GM foods are dangerous or not is irrelevant. I feel I have a right as a consumer to know what is in my food. If there is a BT gene in the tomato in the grocer’s case, then, in my opinion, it is no longer a “normal” tomato. I want to know that before I decide to purchase it. In my opinion, not putting a label on GM foods would be similiar to calling something loaded with Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 “all natural”. If it is safe, there should be no worries about labels. Hell, if GMO foods are so great, the biotech industry should view a govenment mandated label as marketing.
Comment by Rob Humenik | 6/11/2002
If you don’t want to by GM foods, you can always buy organic. Nobody’s twisting anyone’s arm here. Nobody is forcing producers to exclusively grow GM plants.
The thing is, when the government mandates labels be placed it is typically for safety reasons. Otherwise they have no interest in doing so. So if you compel producers to label their products as GM, some people will assume it is out of some kind of safety risk.
Even without the issue of consumer misconceptions about labeling there is the simple matter of the cost of labeling. It will cost producers money to start labeling all GM crops, and there is no compelling reason to order them to do so.
And since GM is little different from cross-breeding, why should there be an exclusive label for biotech? Virtually every crop has at one time been altered naturally. The fact that it is done artificially is irrelevant unless it affects safety.
The government has an interest in protecting the health and well being of its citizens - it is no designed to respond to every irrational fear that crops up.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/12/2002
I do buy organic when I can. I will continue to do so. I am lucky that I live in a location where I have the choice to buy organic. I used to live in a place in PA where there was only one grocery store. There was no choice. If the store stocked only FlavrSavr GM tomatoes, then that’s all there was. If there were a label on those tomatoes, I would be able to skip them. If not, I would never know the difference. Is it “forcing” me to eat them? No, but it is eliminating my choice to disregard the products I don’t desire to purchase. It’s like adding a hidden charge to my phone bill. I still think that is wrong.
I totally disagree that GM is no different than crossbreeding. Crossbreeding is a way of “pushing” natural selection. It is using the cross-pollination of plants with different characteristics or different species to create hybrids. Technically it can happen in nature. GM is taking the genetic material of an entirely different organism and inserting it into the gymnosperm of a plant. It is entirely unnatural. There is no way a Tomato and a Bt bacillus would ever cross breed in a natural setting. I disagree that this artificial change is irrelevant. Would you think inserting the genetic material of a cow into a human female embryo in order to try influence that human’s future milk production would be an acceptable, natural change?
The fact is, and the reports you cited do say this, is that we just don’t know what the effects of genetic manipulation are. The science is in such a nascent state. There are studies out there that have shown problems. Granted, most have not been peer-reviewed. Perhaps they should be. I would like to see it. Until I do, I am not convinced that these products are totally safe. If a drug company were to petition the approval of a drug and say, “Yeah, we don’t think it has any side effects, but we can’t really test it anyway, so it should be marked safe,” do you think the FDA would blindly accept such a drug?
Cost is a typical argument of corporations who tremble when the government threatens to impose the tiniest of regulations upon them. I would like to see a single one of these biotech companies come up with some real numbers to demonstrate that they would suffer serious financial setbacks by adding a label to their packaging.
Finally, there are companies that are trying to force farmers to grow GM crops. The major one is Monsanto. They have been attempting to force farmers to exclusively use their Round-up ready GM seeds for quite a while now. If a farmer tries to mix his own seed in with Monsanto’s seeds or crossbreed, Monsanto sues them for patent infringement. Corporations like Monsanto are not pushing GM products for the good of society; they are trying to make a profit at all costs. Now, I am not anti-corporation, but I think corporate motivations should be considered when an un-tested product with unknown effects is being so forcefully pushed onto consumers and so readily accepted by an administration that has ties to said corporation. There is more to this whole thing than science and making the future better for humankind. Follow the money.
Update: In regard to the coproate cost arguement… There have been several food companies in Britain who have either decided not to use GM foods or are volutarily labeling products that do. Bird’s Eye and Nestle are two of these companies. Neither one has suffered steep financial decline as a result. Both decided that customer sentiment was important. There is an 1999 article about it here
Comment by Rob | 6/12/2002
An article from an anti-biotech website isn’t exactly convincing. I can find you some articles denying the existance of global warming from Ph.D.’s, also claiming the science is poor, and you wouldn’t believe them. Neither is a simple of denial of what the National Academy of Sciences stated going to change any of the facts. The NAS clearly said:
“The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-enginerred organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods.”
Just because it is “unnatural,” as you put it, does not automatically mean there is a greater risk. There may be people about there worried about the effects of cross-breeding. It’s a silly, irrational fear, like the fear of biotechnology, but I’m sure such fears exist. Do they have the right to be informed of any cross-breeding done on their food?
If you want to buy organic, fine. Organic foods are widely available. They’re carried by most every major supermarket chain in varying quantities. Besides, the government has no obligation to ensure that every product you want is on the market. And as for the argument that the regulatory structure for GM foods is inadequate, I’ll refer you to the GAO study which said quite the opposite.
As for the idea that Monsanto has been trying to “force” famers to grow their crops, I’d read that of yours article more closely. According to it, Monsanto accused a farmer of simply using a gene they had already patented. Of course a company will protect their patents, that goes without saying, but Monsanto is not going in and making farmers by GM seeds like some genetically-manufacturer mafia. Of course they want to make a profit - corporations aren’t giant charities - but their product is safe and their methods are within the law.
Finally, as I have been saying all along, labeling does cost money, and there is no compelling government interest that demands labeling be ordered. The is no evidence of a safety risk beyond that seen with cross-breeding and use of common pesticides (your comparison with splicing cow genes into humans, even you must see, is quite week - we don’t cross-breed humans with cows either).
The NAS, the GAO and the UN all say that there is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe. I’d support labeling if there was a justification for it, but alas, there is no such justification.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/12/2002
I have a family history of cancer and I want to do everything I can to avoid it. The truth is, while I actually do find biotechnology fascinating, I don’t trust it yet and feel I shouldn’t have to buy it or have it added into my products. Regardless of what the NAS, GAO, or UN says, the article on the so-called “anti-biotech” site is enough to raise questions in my mind. I don’t accept what that article says wholeheartedly, rather I was simply pointing out that there are differing opinions on this subject and we shouldn’t just discount them out of hand.
Go to the Weis’ supermarket in Wellsboro, PA and show me the organic foods section. I was there six months ago; no organic food. I could call my mother-in-law to confirm. I’m not making it up. I resent the implication that I am.
It’s not my Monsanto article. It was the first I found. Maybe not the best example, but I still think it is valid. There are other records of Monsanto’s alleged misdeeds (as well as those of Calgene as they were formerly known), but you probably wouldn’t agree with them either, so what’s the point.
My example of cows and humans wasn’t an argument at all. It was a hypothetical question. It is preposterous, isn’t it? To me splicing genes of insects and plants together or plants and cows for that matter is just as odd, and shouldn’t be ventured into lightly.
By the way, tell me how inserting foreign genetic material into a plant cell is natural. Perhaps I missed the “spontaneous recombination” lecture in one of my Biology classes.
All of this is moot anyway. We could go round and round for days on this stuff. In my mind it all boils down to a consumer rights issue and/or one of corporate responsibility. Bird’s Eye and Nestle seem to understand the benefits of a consumer-friendly approach to GM foods. Adding labels is not hurting them financially. In fact, it’s probably helping them. If I read you correctly, your argument boils down to making sure corporations don’t have to spend any extra money on the irrational concerns of those customers. I disagree, but I respect your point.
Finally, I would like to say the following. I can appreciate a good debate. I have enabled comments on this site in order to facilitate such debates. I have tried to show you respect in this forum, Owen. I have attacked your arguments, but not once have I resorted to attacking you personally. Your last post questions my rationality, my veracity, and with statements such as, “even you must see”, my intelligence. You have attempted to make this personal. That sullies any debate, and it surely ends this one.
Comment by Rob Humenik | 6/12/2002
It wasn’t my intent to insult you, Rob. I’m serious about that. It’s just that there isn’t any evidence that GM cause cancer or otherwise adversely affect the health of those who consume them. I know you are skeptical of the goodwill of corporations, which I why I said “even you must see” in reference to one of your analogies which I considered weak. I was not trying to malign your intelligence. It had to do with your opinions and biases (I have biases in the opposite direction, I assure you), but certainly not your intellect.
That aside, my opposition to forced labeling comes down to the proper role of government. You may want labeling of GM foods, but unless there is consumer demand for it (as in Europe) then it simply won’t happen. Unless there is a safety risk, I see no reason for the government to force it. The fact that some areas are bereft of organic foods doesn’t change the fact that the government is not responsible for forcing producers to label everything regardless of whether it has any impact on the safety of the consumer.
It might not cost producers much to label, but it would cost them something, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to force them to do so. There are few distinctions, in terms of safety, between GM and cross-breeding. That’s why I said fear of biotech is “silly” and “irrational.” It’s just my opinion, mind you, but it is bolstered by the scientific evidence to date. And yes, I have fears I’d consider silly and irrational as well. Everyone does. I just don’t want the government to act on them.
I’ll be the first to admit you have a valid view on this. You think that consumers should be informed so they can make up their own minds, and that the cost to producers is so minimal as to justify mandatory labeling. That viewpoint is neither silly nor irrational. I don’t believe it is a sufficient justification, but it certainly has its own appeals. Again, I don’t want to insult you on this because you haven’t done the same to me. The last thing I want to do is play the jerk who refuses to respect opposing views.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/12/2002
Thank You, Owen. I appreciate the clarification. I am happy that I was incorrect as to the tone of your argument.
You are correct in your assessment of my position. Through my own dealings with corporations, the brief assignment I had working with the PR division of a corporation, and through things I have read, I have come to distrust the goodwill of certain corporations. I believe that the tactics of corporations like Monsanto/Calgene and ADM are especially pernicious. The fact of the matter is, that when it comes down to the will of the consumer and maximizing profits, the consumer will always lose. That’s not necessarily wrong. That’s what corporations are supposed to do. My view of the government’s role in this is not to step in and regulate business, but to be on the lookout for situations where the corporation may err a little too far on the side of profit and do something about it. I would imagine you and I might disagree on that view.
So I’ve been thinking about this a bit more. You have valid points on the perception of government labels. I see labels as more of an informative tool, but I can see where people might perceive a label as a warning. Let’s say labels were off the table, or perhaps made voluntary. Let’s say instead that the FDA required a food manufacturer to list a GM ingredient as such in the list of a product’s ingredients. For example, if Ragu started using GM Tomatoes in their sauce, they would have to list the ingredient as “Genetically Modified Tomatoes” instead of just “Tomatoes”. How would you feel about that type of thing?
Comment by Rob Humenik | 6/13/2002
I always tend to be skepical of government regulations unrelated to safety or health/nutritional information (as the ingredients labeling is intended), but it probably wouldn’t cost Ragu anything to put “GM” in from of “Tomatoes” on its labeling. I wouldn’t favor it as a requirement, because a GM Tomato is still just a Tomato, but I wouldn’t provide much opposition either.
Again, though, you have to be careful with this. Government regulations cannot yield to every minority that may want a special label on something not related to nutrition or safety. I could think up some (probably inane-sounding) hypotheticals on that, but I believe it is pretty easy to see how that could potentially be abused. Taking away the cost issue goes a long way to staving off some corporate opposition, but it doesn’t remove the core principle of what should and shouldn’t demand labeling.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 6/13/2002