Mandatory GMO food label not backed by science

Labeling food that contains GMO is illogical because genetic engineering is a process and not an ingredient. The US Food and Drug Administration has taken the position that labeling of GMO food is only required “if the food has a nutritional or food safety property that is significantly different from what consumers would expect of that food.”

Thus if a genetically modified food includes a protein that may be an allergen which is not contained in non-GMO varieties, then it should be labeled. Otherwise, the FDA does not view genetically engineered food as materially different from non-GMO food. That’s one key reason why placing a GMO label on a can of soup or a box of cereal is meaningless.

The push for mandatory labeling leaves open the question of exactly what is genetic modification. Should grafting be considered a form of genetic engineering or hybridization or cross breeding of fruit? What about mutagenesis which is the dirty secret of organic farming. This is a process in plant breeding where random mutations are induced in plant DNA using chemicals or radiation. Scientists have been doing this in the laboratories since the 1930s. We now regularly eat more than 2,000 mutagenically created foods, including such organic favorites as Ruby Red grapefruits and versions of wheat used to make organic Italian pasta–all developed over years of laboratory research.

According to an article in Bloomberg Business Week, entitled “The Scariest Veggies of them all”:

Reports from the National Academy of Sciences, representing the consensus of experts in the field, say the risk of creating unintended health effects is greater from mutagenesis than any other technique, including genetic modification. Mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly, spawning mutations that are less precise than GMOs. The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified.

No doubt many in the organic farming community would strongly object to GMO labeling if it included mutagenesis as many organic seeds are derived from such a process. In an article for the Boston Review, the noted plant geneticist Pamela Ronald wrote that “some varieties of California-certified organic rice were developed through radiation mutagenesis” Organic and non-organic varieties of wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum have also been developed through a process of mutagenesis.

To be fair, even though mutagenesis results in the creation of thousands of unknown mutations, versus one or two via precision engineering, there is no evidence that even thousands of random mutations pose genuine health hazards. What’s important though is the hypocrisy factor: thousands of chemical and radiation lab-created mutations are given a free pass by those opposed to GMOs but they go hysterical when just one or two genes are altered, mapped, and tested for allergenicity. That makes no logical sense.

There is another hypocritical aspect of the organic food industry that is not widely known. It likes to vilify Monsanto as an evil agriculture company that forces farmers to use genetically modified seeds. Many organic farmers however rely upon the company Seeds of Change for their seeds. This company happens to be owned by Mars, the candy company. According to Forbes, Mars is the sixth largest private company in the United States with revenues of $33 billion in 2013. Monsanto by contrast had revenues of $15.85 billion in 2014. Monsanto’s annual revenue is roughly the same as Whole Foods.

Labeling food products that contain GMOs could open the flood gates for other demands for labeling under the umbrella of “right to know.” Don’t I have a right to know whether the food in my cereal or in my canned soup has been picked by exploited and underpaid migrant workers? Don’t I have a right to know how much crop subsidies were paid to the farmer who grew the food I am consuming? Don’t I have a right to know how energy efficient the growing process was for the food I am eating? Don’t I have a right to know if food imported from China (organic or non-organic) is grown with water that maybe polluted?

Perhaps pears, grapes, bananas, cauliflowers, potatoes, cabbages and apples should have a label indicating that this product contains naturally occurring formaldehyde while almonds, spinach, bamboo shoots and lima beans should contain a label that says they contain natural occurring cyanide and coffee should have a label that states it contains possible carcinogens. The list of demands for “right to know” is potentially endless.

When consumers were asked in a 2014 consumer perception survey what labels they want on their foods and were not directly asked about GMOs, only four percent said they supported GMO labeling. Seventy-four percent could not think of any additional information they wanted on a food label, 8 percent wanted additional nutritional information and 5 percent wanted more ingredient information.

The complexity and confusion surrounding labeling GMO food deepens the closer you examine the issue. What about genetically modified cotton? Should that also be labelled? As of 2013, 70 percent of the area in the world cultivated by cotton was genetically engineered. What about cheese? About 90 percent of the cheese produced in America is made with fermentation produced chymosin, a milk-clotting enzyme that is produced by genetic engineering. What about the Hawaiian papaya? The crop was devastated by the ringspot virus causing a sharp reduction in production. Genetic modification though has made it no longer susceptible to the disease. As a result, 77 percent of the papaya crop in Hawaii is genetically modified. Without such genetic modification, the entire papaya industry in Hawaii would have been eradicated.

If foods containing GMOs should be labelled then for the sake of consistency, medicines that are made from GMOs should also be labelled. Most of the insulin used in the United States for instance is genetically engineered. An article entitled “GMO Cheerios versus GMO insulin”, which was published on the Biology Fortified website:

Insulin made, in principle, the same way the GMO corn starch and GMO sugar in Cheerios is. To start, the DNA sequence for human insulin is inserted into the bacteria E. coli, which creates an organism that now has DNA from two very different species in it. This new E. coli is a genetically modified organism and serves as a cheap factory for mass-producing the human insulin protein.

Genetic engineering is also involved in the production of human growth hormones and human serum albumin, which is the most abundant protein in human blood plasma, and for treatments for infertility. A February 19, 2014 press release from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center noted:

Investigators from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center have reported more encouraging news about one of the most exciting methods of cancer treatment today. The largest clinical study ever conducted to date of patients with advanced leukemia found that 88 percent achieved complete remission after being treated with genetically modified versions of their own immune cells.

Let’s be clear: the process of genetically engineering is perfectly safe, whether used to make drugs for tweak traits in food. The movement to label GMOs is actually a smokescreen as the true purpose of the labeling campaign is to escalate concerns about the supposed dangers of GMOs and to make the public suspicious about crop biotechnology.

The reality is that all the major scientific institutions in the world have endorsed the safety of GMO technology–a point underscored by this infographic developed by the Genetic Literacy Project. Among them are the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy of Medicine, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the Swiss Institute of Technology, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the French Academy of Sciences, the European Academies of Science Advisory Council, the American Society for Cell Biology, the International Seed Foundation, The Royal Society of Canada, The American Society for Microbiology, the Crop Science Society of America, the Society of African Scientists, Health Canada, the Society of Toxicology, the International Council for Science and the Union of German Academics and Scientists.

GMO safety has not just been acknowledged by independent science organizations; it’s the overwhelming view of mainstream science. A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of members of the world’s largest independent organization of scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, indicated that 88 percent of them agreed that genetically modified food was safe. This compares to 87 percent of scientists who concur that human activity is responsible for climate change. There has not been one instance of a documented illness or death or an allergic reaction resulting from an approved genetically modified food, and therefore there is no need to label it or ban it.

The scientifically literate liberal journalism community, once wary of GMOs, has more recently become aggressive in rejecting the fear mongering surrounding the new technology. Every major liberal publication of note has endorsed the safety of GMOs and/or rejected labeling on the grounds that it’s unscientific, including the New York Times, Boston Globe and the Washington Post.

Scientific American, long regarded as one of the most independent science sources in the world, in its editorial “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea,” made the case that labeling will spread scientifically inaccurate information that could harm human health and slow the development of agricultural biotechnology—which while not a silver bullet could play a key role in increasing the global food supply as population pressures escalate in coming decades.

Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more.” SA wrote. “Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.

It is time to listen to the collective wisdom of the scientific and science journalism communitites instead of the fear-mongers promoting pseudoscience.

Carl Sagan said something that applies to those who are peddling nonsense about GMOs and insisting that they be labelled, which would mostly serve to confirm nonsense and fears.. He said, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Steven E. Cerier is an international economist living in Forest Hills, New York. He can be found on LinkedIn here.

81 thoughts on “Mandatory GMO food label not backed by science”

  1. This article is utter rubbish. Even the title is pure non-sense. Never has science been the harbinger of obfuscation. In fact, the opposite is true. Science promotes the full disclosure of both process and result. If GMOs are such a wonderful alternative to standard crops, then the agribusiness industry ought to be proud to label their products as such. Instead of spending millions lobbying to keep their process invisible to the public, why not embrace transparency and spend those dollars educating the public to the benefits of GMOs and the disadvantages of organics?

    Another spurious argument of this article states that organic products ought to be labeled GMO since they may be produced from mutated seeds. But organic products already come with a label. It says “organic” right on the package. Now it’s time to see GMOs labeled as well.

    The bottom line isn’t one of science anyway. It’s one of ethics and morality. Unfortunately, the agribusiness lacks both. One side of the argument says, “Hey, we just want proof that the food we eat is healthy.” While the other side of the argument says, “Shut up you idiots, we are trying to maximize our profits.”

          • Compare your response to what is printed in the article; you are clearly unaware of your lack of scientific knowledge.
            Stick with unfounded fears of horizontal gene transfer from plasmids.

          • When you act as judge and jury on another’s qualifications, I ask who truly suffers from an inflated sense of self.

          • I know nothing about your “qualifications”, so I haven’t judged you. Your opinions however are without merit and are not supported by credible sources. And for the third time, your posts about this article only demonstrate that you do not understand the science.

          • Steven Cerier is an ECONOMIST, not a scientist. His interpretations of the science is the real issue. His quoting of Carl Sagan is ironic since every word about being ‘bamboozled” could just as well be applied to this article. Suffice it to say that if crops are genetically modified solely to tolerate herbicides such as Roundup they become suspect as do the motives of the corporation that promotes the herbicides and the seeds: ie Monsanto, which has a reputation for unethical, deviousness and deceptive practices.

          • Nice diversionary tactic, but don’t depend upon using strawmen when posting, they are very inflammable!

          • “His interpretations of the science is the real issue.”

            Explain. If you can, that is.

            “Suffice it to say that if crops are genetically modified solely to tolerate herbicides such as Roundup they become suspect…”

            And this claim is based on your extensive agricultural knowledge?

            Why do you think the RR soybean trait was introduced? Never mind, I’ll tell you. Historically, we’ve had very limited choices for post-emergence weed control in soybeans. The ability to use an environmentally-sound herbicide post-emergence was a really big deal. And it became popular quickly.

            “…as do the motives of the corporation that promotes the herbicides and the seeds: ie Monsanto…”

            Except for the fact that Monsanto’s patent on RoundUp expired only 3 years after the commercialization of the RR1 soybean trait. That doesn’t seem like much of a plan to rule the world to me.

          • I worked on a large commercial dairy farm for a couple of years so yes, I do have some experience in agriculture. I also have worked in organic farming for a number of years. I suspect the obsession with the profit motive in corporate farming. Agri-business and commercial farming is farming for the sake of investors for the purpose of making a profit. There is no real concern for the general health of the public since the primary concern is to make investors happy.

          • Suffice it to say that if crops are genetically modified solely to tolerate herbicides such as Roundup they become suspect as do the motives of the corporation that promotes the herbicides

            What about the other way around, what about the herbicides that are designed to be sprayed on non gmo crops without killing them? Do you have a problem with those as well?

    • You are a perfect example of why the labeling mandate is a bad idea. It just confuses the general public. Thanks for proving the point.

      Organic standards claim no GMOs and yet they use GM seed. How can you not see the irony?

      Carried to it’s conclusion, here’s what the demands of the science illiterate will result in on our packaging:
      This product contains heritage strain mutations.
      This product is influenced by the use of grafting methods.
      This product contains plants enhanced by seed selection.
      The farmer of this crop had red hair.
      May contain ingredients stored in a facility near a GOP headquarters.
      Produced in a facility exposed to wifi signals.
      This plant is the result of natural selection.
      This plant was cultivated in a field once planted with heritage strains.
      The farmer’s tractor had green body paint.
      This product is the result of 4.3 billion years of evolutionary mutations.
      This product contains remnants of DNA that were once alive.
      This was grown in fields sprayed with raw animal feces.
      This plant evolved with the aid of mitosis errors.
      On and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
      Get a grip, people!

    • If organic breeding methods like mutagenic are such a wonderful alternative then the organic industry should be proud to label their products as such. If organic pesticides, like Burnout II, are such a wonderful alternative then the organic industry should be proud to label their products as such.

      • Show me the generational peer reviewed studies proving there is no adverse affect of consuming GMO products, especially those roundup ready varieties. Again, I do not question genetic modification as a science, but the motivation behind its corporate use.

        • Here you go:

          Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials:

          Chelsea Snell, et al.

          ab s t r a c t

          The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12
          long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available.
          Many parameters have been examined using
          biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been
          considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small
          differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed
          in rodents, according to the OECD Test
          Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally
          equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

          Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148

          I have more if you would like them.

          • Mr. Kleiss has a way of disappearing when confronted and/or challenged with credible science. A true religious fanatic.

    • you make an excellent point. every since WHO announced glyphosate to be a probably carcinogen i’ve been seeing these articles pop up like clock work. it’s funny to see monsanto and dupont having a knee jerk reaction to the truth. I bet some of these people are paid professional trolls too. I already see someone i suspect to be one. good luck.

  2. How could you write this article without mentioning H.R. 4432, Rep. Mike Pompeo’s GMO labelling bill?

    America is the leader in this field precisely because we do not
    have threshold limits on GMO content. But by caving-in to organic activists, Pompeo is putting the future of every American GMO farm on the line.

  3. How can science back or not back a public policy? This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. It just shows how ignorant u r of what science really is.

  4. Well, actually, in France, anti-GMO activists like José Bové want the European Union to expand the definition of “genetically engineered plants” to breeds obtained through mutagenesis, which they call GMO in disguise. I’m sorry but I can’t find any sources about that in English, only in French: So, yes, if this kind of view is accepted, we’ll get into some really sticky and absurd corners!

  5. “Labeling food that contains GMO is illogical because genetic engineering is a process and not an ingredient.”

    90% of people in the U.S. support labeling of food which has been genetically modified. If this is a democracy it’s time to labe – Oh, wait, it’s not a democracy and the government is controlled by big business.

    • Actually, not true. That was a manipulated poll. The last four ballot elections where voters decided on labeling saw the measures defeated.
      And besides, as others point out, activists do not have the right to mandate a process label for just this one process, ignoring mutagenesis (look it up) and other types of gene altering, in misleading ways, where sugar would be called GE when after processing it is identical to non-GE sugar, and where cheese, which is genetically modified, would not be required to be labeled. Everyone knows that labeling is an activist issue, not an issue in any way related to health or nutrients.

  6. How was the poll which showed that 90% of people support GMO labeling “manipulated?”

    Please specify. “Manipulated” could mean many, many things. The term is easily exploited for PR purposes and to mislead the public.

    What “voters” voted on those four ballots? Yet again, please specify and tell me where those ballots were taken and who voted on them.

    Because surely if biochemical industry CEOs voted on a ballot whether to label GMOs or not, the measure would be soundly defeated repeatedly.

    “And besides, as others point out, activists do not have the right to mandate a process label” WAIT WAIT wait a minute here. Activists DO have the right to mandate a process label. This is supposed to be a Democracy, for the people (common people, non – elite people, majority population), by the people (common, non – elite people, majority population.)

    Labeling IS an activist issue. But it’s also an issue which the general public of America has taken up. The proletariat are becoming the activists and soon the far too powerful bourgeoisie will be punished.

  7. steven E Cerier is an IDIOT and deserves to be slapped across the face for being a SELL OUT to the $$$ corporations paying for his flat in New York…

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend