The WP editorial “GM labelling unnecessary; focus must be safety, health” (Aug. 23) deserves some more attention.
If Proposition 37 passes in California, the words “partially produced with genetic engineering” would be required on the package.
More than 40 countries currently have genetic modification food labelling. Polls in North America show that the majority of consumers want GMOs labelled. Since they pay taxes, they feel that they should have a right to know what they are eating. Fair enough.
Why shouldn’t GM foods be labelled? The idea that GMO labelling will raise food costs is questionable.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Manufacturers change their labelling all the time — anytime their product is “new and improved” or they change a logo — and those costs are not passed onto the consumer. When the government required nutritional information to be posted on each container, prices didn’t go up because of it.
Another non-issue is the threat of nuisance lawsuits. The California initiative does not include the controversial bounty fees (lawsuits that allow plaintiffs to keep a “bounty” of 25 percent of civil penalties collected.)
Ditto the litigation costs to the state. A recent analysis by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, professor of analytical methods at Emory Law School, found that administrative costs will be less than $1 million — that is, less than one cent for each person living in California.
So red herrings aside, what about health and safety? The government should protect the public from danger and support its ability to make healthful choices. However, no long-term studies exist on the safety of GM food. Neither Health Canada nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has conducted studies on GM foods. All safety testing is done by the biotech companies and their data is accepted without independent back-up testing. It is a conflict of interest to ask the industry to police itself.
The biotech industry claims that GM food is not substantially different than regular food, yet it is so radically different that the seeds can be patented.
Dozens of independent studies worldwide raise questions about allergies and other potential health risks. In the 1990s, the British government awarded a grant of $1.6 million to conduct a rigorous safety assessment of GM food. Arpad Pusztai led a team of 20 scientists in an animal testing study and concluded that the GM plant he was using caused considerable health problems to the animals, including damage to their organs and immune systems.
He faced extreme pressure to recant his research but refused. Twenty-three top scientists from around the world peer reviewed the research, and the study was officially published in the Lancet.
Pesticides and herbicides appear to cause harm in even modest amounts. A recently published study in the journal Toxicology in Vitro showed that glyphosate, which is frequently present residually in GM food, can affect men’s testosterone and sperm counts. Pesticides are linked to Parkinson’s disease and lymphomas.
The organic sector could be one avenue for consumers to avoid GMOs, but for how long?
GM seeds and pollen transfer into the fields of organic farmers. Cross contamination occurs and is un-avoidable. It is a dilemma for all non-GM farmers. Even the farmers who used GM seed to increase yields are running into problems with weed and pesticide resistance. The technology is failing.
GM technology is the only technology that can’t be stopped. Even nuclear plants can be shut down, but GM is forever.
We all eat, so it is of vital importance to protect our food supply and not be casual about the long-term complications that come with GM technology. Consumers never asked for GM food. Until the government fulfills its responsibility to conduct independent safety testing, surely the least we can expect is labelling.
Heidi Osterman is a certified nutritionist in Kelowna, B.C.
