Campaign to label biotech foods a waste of time and money

What is in this article?:

  • The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and is currently being evaluated to determine if the adequate amount of voter signatures has been collected to place it on November’s ballot.
  • The initiative would ban foods from being labeled or marketed as “natural” if they have been processed in any way – even if they contain no biotech ingredients.
  • The measure would allow anyone to sue, claiming a food company, grocer or farmer has violated its labeling provisions – even when they have no proof of any damages.

Occasionally you just have to stop and ask yourself what the public has against scientific progress; especially when it comes to feeding a burgeoning world at affordable prices while keeping food safe, abundant and affordable for everyone.

I honestly don’t get it – this reluctance to eat genetically modified (GM) foods.  I have been working in the agriculture industry for nearly seven years now and I can’t tell you how many stories that I have read, and how many times I have been told, genetically altered foods are dangerous, unpredictable, “unnatural,” toxic and poison and just you wait – soon the earth will be stricken by a universal pandemic that threatens to end life as we know it; all caused by those horrible “Frankenfoods.”

Just as you think you’ve lived long enough to have heard it all, along comes another silly campaign endorsed and supported by environmental coalitions, organic-only consumers and at least one questionable donor who want to add yet more words to already long and cluttered ingredient labels now on store shelves that the majority of us don’t read anyway. That’s right, you now need to know that you have been eating foodstuffs over the past many years that contain – (drum roll please) – genetically engineered fruits and vegetables! Ahh, the callousness and inhumanity of it all!

The initiative is known as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and is currently being evaluated to determine if the adequate amount of voter signatures has been collected to place it on November’s ballot.  No other state in the union requires these types of labels on food.

And these wise proponents of GM labeling, when asked what they have against gene-altered plants in our food chain, frequently offer up the answer of “No one really knows the threat. But beware, in a few short years health problems will develop on a global basis that will be traced to GM foods as the source.” Plus, of course, there’s “the possibility of creating brand new allergens.”

(For more, see: Time to take on anti-biotech crowd over GMO labeling)

This is simply unadulterated hogwash. It’s like saying we shouldn’t heat our food with electromagnetic radiation because we just can’t be certain about the long-term health effects of microwave ovens. Many of us didn’t grow up with these tools in our kitchens, but they aren’t exactly an unproven technology.

This so-called GM food threat isn’t how some globally respected organizations see it:  The American Dietetic Association, the American Medical Association, the Research Council of the National Academies of Science, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization all agree that GM products are safe and nutritious. FDA officials say there’s no need for the federal government to require labeling because there is no material difference between genetically modified and unmodified food.

In the United States, more than 170 million acres of biotech crops were planted in 2011, according to the nonprofit International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. We’ve been growing GM crops for almost a generation, all over the world. Farmers have harvested billions of acres of them. People have eaten trillions of servings of food derived from these sources – all this without even as much as a reported tummy-ache.

Discuss this Article 16

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 1, 2012

Conventional agriculture lobby should approach pharmaceutical companies and enlist their help. Otherwise they should push to get GM drugs labeled.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 1, 2012

Richard probably avoids GMO's himself, like those at monsanto. Hypocrites.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 1, 2012

The assertion that foods "processed in any way – even if they contain no biotech ingredients" would be prohibited from being label natural is completely fspecious. Biotech proponents tried this tactic when the initiative was first submitted to the state of California. The Attorney General has already stated that this is false and that the spirit of the law ONLY puts labeling restrictions on foods that actually contain GMOs.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 1, 2012

Spoken like an association whose job is to protect the interests of fertilizer companies.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 2, 2012

Why don't you go drink a glass of glyphosate? Maybe then you will understand what the uproar is all about. Oh, yes, but glyphosate isn't working anymore and now you idiots now want to spray agent orange and glyphosate to stop the super weeds you nutjobs created. You are living in a delusional world. Wake up, poison man!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 3, 2012

No worry, one day monsatan will go broke cleaning up there toxic mess..

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 3, 2012

I would be easier if California would accept an ammendment to require labeling of all non-gmo foods. That way no packaging would have to be changed on a large scale. The California Right To Know Law would still inform people - can't we all just get along.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jul 28, 2012

Actually I am starting to see non-GMO products. It would be nice in the perfect world for us to all get along but history shows different. I am for prop. 37. And if anyone sues all they would received is reimbursement for court cost. Not many ambulance chasers there. : )

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 4, 2012

And there were many people who did't believe Rachel Carson either . Read some of the research of Dr. Huber or Dr. Pusti or Dr. McNeil in Iowa .

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 4, 2012

GM is bad for California farming. Too many non-GM crops surrounding any possible GM crops make operations extremely difficult for custom operators.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 4, 2012

Hey you all try feeding other people for a living; most folks are just glad to have cheap food, too bad you are all so caught up in your uninformed beliefs to care about reality.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 5, 2012

The author should do us all a favor and eat a strict diet of BT genetically modified crops and aspartame infused foods.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 6, 2012

"There is no material difference between genetically modified and unmodified food." Okay, they might look the same and taste the same BUT their genes have been altered, as in "tampered with." Changed. Elements added that are toxic to certain insects. Who knows what a decade's accumulation of this benign (for humans) toxicity will do on the cellular level for a human. Oh that's right, no one's testing that. The assumption is: nobody dropped dead after eating a GMO fruit, so your worries are nonsense. A longtime experiment on consumers, that no one is tracking, in which consumers are denied the choice of knowing which foods are GMO on their grocery shelves. Assume everything NOT labeled "Organic" contains GMOs and refuse to eat it. Or grow your own. It's not about "feeding the hungry" (their talking point). It's about CONTROL. They want to control your choices. (Can you say MON-SAN-TO???)

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 8, 2012

"People have eaten trillions of servings of food derived from these sources – all this without even as much as a reported tummy-ache."

Richard, how do you explain the findings of a Canadian study where Bt toxin from GE corn was found in 80% of umbilical cord and fetal blood samples, and in 93% of the women studied. It appears Bt proteins are not broken down in the gut, per Monsanto's claim.

www.laleva.org/eng/docs/ReproductiveToxicology.pdf

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 19, 2012

I am for labeling products that contain gmos if I am going to ingest that product. patents for lifeforms is what has created the corruption and deception surrounding the dispersal of the new traits.
these genes are part of nature, all biotech done is to swap a gene from one lifeform to another. Taxpayers have funded the research in the science for decades.

Swapping cinnamon for nutmeg in a recipe does not get your a patent and dna is just a code or recipe.

possibly unique to this planet

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 15, 2012

Rats fed diets of GM soy were sterile by the third generation. Sure, they seem perfectly safe now, but how about when your grand kids can't have kids? Is this worth cheap food?

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup