“You are what you eat”. This quote is often attributed to the nutritionist Victor Lindlahr who wrote a book in the 1940s by the same title. His wisdom still rings true in our ears today. How aware are we of what goes into our food today? Does it really matter? The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard recently began to be implemented on January 1st of this year. It provides a national standard for all food labeling companies to include information on all bioengineered food, or food that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This standard comes in response to consumer concerns over whether or not GMOS contain hidden substances toxic to humans. Some consumers are concerned over the amount of GMOs that humans consume in general considering their prevalence in almost everything we eat, especially in common crops, such as corn or potatoes. However, while many people think that the GMOs themselves are harmful, the labels are really the issue at hand. GMOs should not be labeled because it compels the speech of companies, negatively stigmatizes them, raises the price of food for all Americans, and hurts farmers and the agriculture industry as a whole.
A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is “a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic technology” (Westgate). They are also sometimes referred to as bioengineered or biotechnology. While the term ‘genetically modified organism’ may appear very transparent and straightforward, there is quite the controversy surrounding the use of GMOs. Before the United States Department of Agriculture established the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Vermont was the first state to have passed a mandatory GMO labeling law. However, this mandatory labeling law caused more hurt than it helped as it pitted the state government against various food manufacturers in a battle on whether or not labeling GMOs was constitutional.
Companies being forced to label their products containing GMOs according to Vermont’s law indeed violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Classified as compelled speech, this law would require all food manufacturing companies to label all products containing any trace of genetically modified organisms. Additionally, both international and local companies wanting to sell products containing GMOs in Vermont would be required to label their goods. In a law journal written by attorney Lucas Westerman, he proves that the labeling of GMOs is erroneous because it is inherently misleading and a “contributing factor to consumer confusion regarding GMOs”, not a substantial consumer interest or way of advancing said interest, and “not narrowly tailored to fulfill the objective of consumer interest” (Westerman, 225). If GMOs were required to be labeled though they aren’t intrinsically bad, there would be nothing to stop other things from following in their wake and requiring mandatory labeling as well. Labeling something automatically creates a bias, whether it be good or bad, towards any object. For example, medicine is labeled because the wrong dosage or intentional misuse could result in various life-threatening situations and even death. Cigarettes are labeled because they are known to cause cancer and other complicated health problems. However, labeling diapers containing polymers, such as sodium polyacrylate, would be ridiculous because they are essential to making diapers more absorbent and performing their proper function. Though one may not initially understand how a polymer works, consumers place their confidence in manufacturers and sufficient research has been done to show that they are non-toxic. Likewise, consumers may not completely understand GMOs but until there is research with verifiable evidence that GMOs are harmful, we shouldn’t be biased towards them. Mandatory GMO labeling will only further persuade consumers that there is something hidden or malevolent about them.
On the other side of the issue, Westerman does clarify that voluntary labeling initiatives could potentially resolve consumer issues with GMOs and give “interested consumers a choice without burdening the entire food industry with expensive re-labeling requirements” (Westerman, 225). Groups such as the Non-GMO Project and the Just Label It! organization raise money to spread awareness against the ‘potential threats’ of GMOs and the increase of pesticides used on crops. They also use funds to put their own ‘non-GMO’ labels on approved foods. While the effort these groups are putting in to persuade consumers to choose products free of GMOs is admirable, even the executive director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Westgate states that “the safety of GMOs is unknown…in the absence of credible independent long-term feeding studies” (Westgate). Rather than use money raised to fund such studies to assure consumers that there really is a ‘potential threat’, these groups would rather label non-GMO products unnecessarily and promote mandatory labeling for bioengineered products. This is not only ineffective and costly, but also contributes even further to the negative stigmatization of GMOs.
Despite the efforts of these non-GMO organizations, the FDA has stated that GMOs are safe for consumption and can have a positive impact on non-GMO crops. In the defense of GMOs, reporter Kevin Mooney wrote an article in the Washington Examiner scrutinizing the intentions of non-GMO activists.
Under FDA guidelines, 'GMO-Free' and 'No GMOs' labels are impermissible if they include explicit or even implied health claims that non-GMO products are safer for humans and the environment. Before any health claim can be made, there must be substantial scientific agreement, according to the FDA. That's a problem for the Non-GMO Project, or at least it would be, if the law was enforced. The FDA has asserted on multiple occasions that GMO products measure up to the same health and safety requirements as do organic foods (Mooney).
The FDA expressly prohibits labels that imply that non-GMO foods are better than foods containing GMOs. Therefore, the labeling of any product is more detrimental and detracting as consumers may believe that GMOs are less healthy than ‘organic’ or ‘all-natural’ foods, many of which are treated with more harmful pesticides than GMOs themselves. In an experiment comparing crop damage and insecticide use in various states, doctor of biology Diana Gitig reported that the mere planting of GMOs helped prevent pesticide use on commercial crops. By planting genetically modified corn that expresses a natural pesticide near regular varieties of corn, scientists noted a decrease in moth populations throughout the experiment and even during their mating season (Gitig). Consequently, the amount of pesticide use was decreased eighty-five percent, from six pesticide applications, to only one! The GMO plants with the gene expressing a natural pesticide did not need the extra application of chemical pesticide; however, the ‘organic’ crops did. If GMO crops had to be labeled for sale, farmers would be less likely to use them and there would be less crops for general sale and consumption. GMOs don’t need to be labeled because they also help regular crops, decrease the need for pesticides, and help crops become safer for consumers.
Safety is clearly a priority and concern for consumers and producers alike. Contrary to popular beliefs held by anti-GMO organizations, there actually have been a number of studies done to show that the use of bioengineering on crops has no detrimental effects to an organism’s health abnormal from that of a regular crop. German doctor and professor Gerhard Flachowsky conducted one such study where common livestock were fed with first generation genetically modified plants and then had their digestive tract and tissues tested for the modified DNA and proteins of the plant. Flachowsky found that not only was there “no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from the so-called 1st generation of genetically modified plants” compared to the non-genetically modified plants, but also that “no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins [were] found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with” the genetically modified plants (Flachowsky). More studies are currently being done or are currently being proposed to test heavily genetically modified organisms (two or more generations of large changes to DNA) but small genetic changes to help reduce production costs and preserve crops are safe and approved by the Food and Drug Administration and do not need to be labeled.
Even though genetically modified products are considered safe by the FDA, companies are still required to label their products under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. There are currently two options for companies producing genetically modified products: they can either start putting labels on their product or they need to find a way to source ingredients that are not genetically modified. If manufacturers start putting labels on their products, costs in production will rise slightly to account for the cost of the physical label. However, there is also a cost associated with the amount of business lost from consumers reading and perceiving the GM label. In a study done by food and agricultural economist D. A. Yeh, these costs of mandatory GMO labeling were measured. After examining 1,300 subjects, researchers determined that products with ‘Not-GM’ labels were treated the same as if they weren’t labeled at all when compared to unlabeled products. When faced with a choice of ‘Not-GM’ and unlabeled products while also in the presence of GM labeled products, consumers no longer differentiated between products without GMOs, regardless of its label (Yeh). However, the consumer’s willingness to buy products containing GMOs decreased by 23.7 percent. Effectively, companies without a way to source products free of GMOs will lose about one-fourth of their sales from having to label their products.
If companies want to avoid the potential decrease in sales from having to label their products, their other option is to find a way to reformulate their products with non-GM ingredients. Doctor and agricultural economics professor Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes wrote an article describing the various impacts this would have on the agricultural industry. He examined price premiums across four foods: salad and cooking oil, breakfast cereal, tortilla chips, and ice cream. With the increase of ninety-two percent and almost sixty-two percent in price premiums of organic and non-GMO foods respectively over seven years, he concluded that the cost of reformulation for companies using GM ingredients in their food would skyrocket production costs and therefore skyrocket consumer prices as well by almost ten percent (Kalaitzandonakes). That might not seem like a terrible trade-off for Whole Food shoppers, but it will break the bank for food-stamp recipients and other customers struggling to make ends meet. Exorbitant prices for produce and non-GM food will lead to a decrease in demand, and therefore a decrease in the agricultural industry as a whole. Many farmers and agricultural companies will be put out of business because they are not able to afford non-GM alternatives.
Non-GM alternatives are just not as viable as products containing GMOs, especially considering that virtually everything we eat already has GM ingredients from alcohol and canola oil to ice cream and yeast products. In addition to being more expensive than genetically modified varieties, they also require more water and are not as resilient as their GM counterparts. Crop and environmental scientist Dr. Elisa Peligrino did a study on the resilience of genetically engineered (GE) maize where she found that the “GE maize performed better than its near isogenic (non-GE) line: grain yield was 5.6 to 24.5% higher with lower concentrations of mycotoxins (−28.8%), fumonisin (−30.6%) and thricotecens (−36.5%)” (Peligrino). With the same amount of water required for a regular corn crop, the GE corn crop yielded almost one-fourth more crops than its regular counterpart and was much more resilient to different types of blight that normally affect corn crops. Other genetically modified crops similarly conserve water, are generally more hardy than normal varieties, and can provide sources of vital nutrients not commonly found in developing third world countries. For example, a type of rice called ‘golden rice’ for its unusual yellow color and high vitamin A content could be the solution to vitamin A deficiencies in Bangladesh if it manages to get its governmental approval and consumer acceptance (Stokstad). Genetically modified crops and ingredients have the potential to make a great impact both locally and internationally on problems such as malnutrition and starvation. However, if mandatory labeling for GMOs continues to be pursued, consumers and farmers alike will be convinced that the additional costs attached to GM products outweigh their benefits and ultimately cripple the entire agricultural industry.
Genetically modified organisms are commonplace in the agricultural industry today and highly practical. Not only are they cost effective and decrease the need for pesticides, they could also be the key to solving nutritional problems throughout the world and help efficiently increase the general supply of food. While non-GMO activists have the right to be concerned about the prevalence of GMOs, both the Food and Drug Administration and many scientists have conducted research on the safety of GMOs and have deemed them to have no negative health effects. Indeed, the mandatory labeling of genetically modified products should be stopped to conserve the freedom of speech for companies, prevent the further negative stigmatization of GMOs, continue to maintain and potentially decrease the price of food, and help preserve business for local farmers and the agricultural industry. As all consumers consider the benefits of genetically modified organisms, their consumption and support of these products will not only contribute to further research and advances in biotechnology, but they will also be essential in fighting against world hunger and supporting local farmers and the agricultural economy.