A high percentage of food staples like corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets are genetically engineered, resulting in an astounding seventy percent of processed food on the American grocery shelf containing genetically modified ingredients. Everything from livestock feed to vaccine production has become dependent upon this biotechnological advancement. Even though the dependency on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has risen dramatically in the past few decades, there is little research on long-term health effects on animals and the environment, raising concern for some scientists and people around the globe.
While there is growing opposition to GMOs, the benefits are many, including: creation of vaccines for more efficient mass production; creation of renewable and sustainable plant-based products; elimination of toxins and allergens in otherwise inedible foods; increased crop yield in less hospitable environments; and reduction of food prices. The long-term impact on environmental health is currently unknown, but it has been established that the rise in pest-resistant crops has decreased global pesticide use. The economic impact GM crops have also resulted in less crop loss and more profitable farming.
Little research has been done to suggest ingestion of new proteins or altered DNA is harmful to human health, but a recent scientific finding (unrelated to GMO research) found the presence of microRNA (from rice) inside the human liver post-digestion. The micro-RNA altered the cells inside the liver, changing blood cholesterol levels. This is significant on a number of scientific fronts, particularly given micro-RNA’s association with altering human cells and it’s implication in diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Diabetes.
Although this scientific finding may be unrelated to GMOs, this research does suggest that Monsanto’s position is particularly audacious. Monsanto, a corporate leader, and often target of GMO opposition states on its website, “There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods. DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.” The end result – the final product and its DNA – is the same as non-GMO and therefore non-toxic, despite the addition of new protein that alters the behavior of the product. Opponents to GM crops find this view particularly problematic, possibly setting up billions of people (and the environment) with disastrous consequences.
One such unintended result of GM crops has been the creation of the new “superweed.” These new weeds have become resistant to a variety of different pesticides, potentially rendering some GM crops almost useless. The long-term impact on environmental health is currently unknown, although it has been established that the rise in pest-resistant crops has decreased global pesticide use overall, which is a clear benefit to genetic modification.
Growing health concern and awareness as well as corporate distrust has led many to push for all GMOs or food products containing GMOs to be labeled. Those who favor labeling want consumers to have the power to make a conscious purchasing decision. The choice to buy specific foods not only has an impact on human health and the environment, but politically, socially and economically. Food labels already contain a great deal of information and over 3000 ingredients are already regulated and required to be on a label, so proponents ask, why not identify GMOs?
The answer, according to the opposition, is GMO labeling is a risky economic, political, and scientific move, potentially creating a stigma that GMOs are harmful even if current scientific evidence is generally inconclusive. The expense of labeling could be extensive and extreme, given its inclusion in most foods and animal feed. Would animals that feed on GMO food be labeled as well? Establishing what should be labeled could prove very tricky. Additionally, labeling could have a negative impact on funding and advancement within the biotechnological realm, especially if consumers associate the addition of information on food as a precautionary. Such decision could affect consumer purchases, putting American staples and companies at risk for great economic loss.
Legislation on GM labeling has been very little, most likely due to the threat of lawsuit by industry leader Monsanto. Vermont residents overwhelmingly support H0722, but the cost of a lawsuit would be overwhelming and likely a losing battle. New York and Hawaii are also making efforts to add GMO labeling to food products, but it’s unclear whether it will be successful or at risk for expensive legal action. California residents also added a ballot initiative requiring GMO labeling – (possibly) up for a vote in the November 6 election. If passed, this could add momentum to the GMO opposition.
The debate over genetically modified food labeling is clearly in the beginning stages and few states have had success in attempting to add information to their labels, despite public opinion. Some opponents to GM claim this is because of the heavy financial and political influence the biotech industry has within the US. Even so, labeling could have some significant negative consequences.
Many organic food companies already label their products with information to target selected consumers concerned with GMOs. However, not all communities have access to these products. GM foods take up a majority of space within the grocery store, and many opponents claim consumers have the right to know.
Is the public’s right to know worth the possible economic and scientific consequences, even if we don’t know for certain that genetically modified foods are indeed harmful? Benefits to GM crops exist, but are those benefits worth the risk to the environment and public health?
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.