I’m a label reader. I try to avoid high fructose corn syrup, sodium, and red dyes in my food because I have convinced myself it is healthier. I have to avoid peanuts, shell fish, and strawberries because I am allergic. My children and husband also suffer from food sensitivities. Reading labels allows me to protect them and myself. As far as I am concerned, more information about our food is good for consumers, which is why I find it more than a little perplexing people would fight against California’s Proposition 37.
The Yes on Prop 37 campaign says it would “require any raw or processed food made from genetically altered plant or animal material to be labeled as of July 1, 2014, when it would go into effect. Raw foods, like papaya or corn, for example, would be labeled “Genetically Engineered.” Processed foods may require labels like, “Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering,” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” It also prohibits labeling such foods as “natural.” The Department of Public Health would be responsible for enforcing all labeling.”
Sounds good to me. What’s the big deal?
Apparently a lot.
The No on Prop 37 campaign argues labeling could make food prices higher and that anyway the science behind the risks of genetically manufactured organisms (GMOs) has not been proven. Let’s think about this…
Early in my career, I worked as a Brand Manager at Nestle Corporation. Brands made labeling changes fairly regularly in order to attract the consumer’s eye at the point of purchase. The cost of this change was absorbed as a cost of marketing. The price for this cost was not passed on to the consumer simply because the consumer has so many choices, the food manufacturer would not want to risk losing her (or his) loyalty.
In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act. It was signed into law by President Bush and required food manufacturers to standardize labeling of their products. Boy did the companies complain. They argued consumers would be harmed because food prices would sky rocket. Well, they didn’t. Sure adding a new nutritional notification requires an inconvenient and costly packaging change for food manufacturers who then could pass these changes on to consumers. But in the end, the short-term cost of making these labeling changes is absorbed by the market and prices do not rise. You can read a deep analysis regarding food price implications of Prop 37 here. In sum, the threat of higher food prices is simply a distraction and a spurious argument at best. Nice try though.
We Don’t Know What We Don’t Know
What about the health issues? You’ve probably seen the GMO rats as a result of the 1998 studies done in the United Kingdom. They are disgusting and deeply concerning. These studies created the “Frankenfood” scare and led Europe to ban GMOs for the more than a decade. It may be GMOs kill rats and goats and other animals, but the impact on humans remains unclear.
While Europe was running away from GMOS, we here in the states were racing towards them. Today, nearly 90% of the corn, soy, and other crops in the U.S. are genetically engineered. The result? We, Americans, are one big research project. According to the No campaign team, there have been no proven direct links between genetically engineered food and an increase in illness (of course, the obesity epidemic does come to mind).
But, this could be case of we don’t yet know what we don’t know. Perhaps the impact takes a lifetime to reveal itself. Have you watched Mad Men lately? I love the sly commentary on the advertising of cigarettes. Remember when they said they were actually healthy for us? They weren’t lying at the time. They did’t know. What don’t we know now?
We Don’t Know What We Don’t Know
And what about the environment? Anti-GMOers cite study after study that seems to link genetically engineered crops and Round Up with the decline of monarch butterflies and the near eradication of honey bees. We don’t know for sure. But we do know that crop poisoning occurs. The birds and the bees travel from plant to plant spreading the nectar and seeds. They don’t have an internalized wall that says oops can’t cross this line because that row of corn is genetically modified and this one isn’t. Crop poisoning is inevitable. This means that soon all of our crops could be tainted with genetically engineered foods.
Given all of the conflicting issues surrounding GMOs, why not put a label on a box of Corn Flakes? Well Monsanto, who produces the vast majority of these genetically engineered seeds, would rather not have to deal with it. You see they have a profitable double barreled approach to weed control. Here’s how it works:
Farmers complain about weeds limiting their crops. Monsanto creates this great little herbicide called Round Up and it also creates a genetically modified seed that won’t be killed when sprayed with Round Up. This means farmers can spray at will, killing invasive weeds but not the crops. Crops yields go up, farmers sell more of their crops, so they are happy. Monsanto is happy because farmers are growing and spraying the company’s products like there is not tomorrow.
The problem comes in when the weeds become resistant to Round Up and then the farmers have to spray different herbicides. The good news is that Monsanto has them and creates a different genetically engineered seed that is impervious to the new and different herbicides. You see the loop here. As long as we are willing to accept genetically engineered foods, Monsanto can keep on selling its products.
How does this relate to labeling? Well, as any good marketer knows, labeling creates awareness. If consumers are suddenly aware that the vast majority of their food is made with genetically engineered crops, they might get a little concerned and question the benefits of Monsanto’s star products. Then environmentalists, food purists, health nuts and the like might be joined with everyday Jills and Jacks to challenge the benefits of the “Frankenfood.” The moment consumers walk away from these products (because their corn flakes have a label informing them that the cereal is made from compromised crops), then the profit loop is compromised.
As such, Monsanto has much reason to resist the labeling. But they needn’t worry. The truth is, genetically engineered foods are with us to stay. According to a recent article in Time magazine, The U.N. says the world population is set to reach 9 billion by 2050, requiring a 70% rise in global food production to feed the planet. We simply can’t produce this much food without the help of GMOs. Of course, those who will be consuming these modified foods will be the 99% who can’t afford anything else.
For now though, I am not asking Monsanto to stop producing its genetically engineered seeds. I am not asking agribusiness to stop planting said seeds. At least, not yet. What I am asking for is the power to decide with my own almighty dollar. When you add something to my food, just let me know. It’s not too much to ask, now is it?
Hi Lisen & Aimee,
Thank you for these thoughtful posts about GMOs and your very needed experiment of searching for common ground. In a world that is more and more polarized by the day, even attempting to understand each other will inevitably move us closer together.
In the spirit of full transparency, Lisen and I are cousins. My mother and her father are siblings. Lisen, thanks for sharing your work with me, I thought I knew a lot about GMOs, being that I’ve been a farmer (organic without the certification) and currently lead a grassroots organization that runs a food justice campaign, but what I learned is that I still have a lot to learn. I think all of us do.
That’s why I’m in support of GMO labeling, and Proposition 37. Because we all have a lot to learn and most of us don’t have a very healthy relationship with our food. We do know where it comes from, we don’t know what’s in it, we don’t know who grew it, we don’t know what it does to our body.
I think we need to radically transform our relationship with our food and labeling GMOs will help this process happen.
It will help begin, as have begun on this blog, conversations about how we begin to answer the where, what, who, and the effects of our food. You see, less than a hundred years ago, and for many of us more connected to the land, less than 50 years ago, we knew the answers to all these questions. I tend to think that it’s always better to know than to not know. So, we’re headed in the wrong direction: away from knowing.
I want to know, don’t you?
Tomas, I’m so glad you were willing to read and comment. Thank you.
I have a few friends who farm, both conventional and organic. They say food choice is important. That there’s room for all types of farms and foods, and that farmers need to support each other, trusting each farmer does what works best for their operation. I’m curious as to what you think about that and how you think labeling might impact farmers?
Aimee
Hi Aimee,
I actually believe that labeling will encourage more organic farming, and increase the demand on existing organic farms. I think this is a good thing for many reasons, even if you don’t think that there are any negative health effects of GMOs (which I think the jury is still definitely out on), most, if not almost all organic farmers are smaller, 50 acres and less, and usually source locally. This is better for our local economies, and our environment. To me its a win/win for everyone expect monsanto and massive (10,000 acres style) agribusiness. Just my initial thoughts.
Hi, Tomas.
My farming friends are always saying most of the farms in America are family-owned and on the smallish side, so I did a quick Google search to find some stats. This is what I came up with that I think adds some more context to our conversation:
USDA reports the average farm size in 2011 was only 420 acres (http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmLandIn/FarmLandIn-02-17-2012.pdf) and from a 2007 study 98% of American farms are family-owned including the largest farms (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib66.aspx). I also found this particularly interesting from USDA: “Production is concentrated among large family farms, very large family farms, and nonfamily farms. The Nation relies on larger farms for most of its food and fiber, despite the large number of small farms.” (http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.pdf).
What I’m taking from that is there really are not that many massive farms in America as most are small, family-owned operations. If those small farms practice conventional methods, they would likely be hurt the most by changes brought on with mandatory labeling. Also, the large farms, though demonized by some, provide the lion’s share of food and fiber we use. To me, that makes them important to our economy and worth supporting as well. That said, the demand for organic produce has increased like wildfire; organics definitely play a role in this equation. I think we need all types of farms, we should support all types, and we should trust farmers to do what works best for their land and operation.
Now I need your help in understanding a phrase you used–”sourcing locally.” Do you mean organic farmers buy implements locally, sell their produce locally, or maybe both?
I mean that they sell their produce locally. As for the contribution of mega-farms, most of what they produce: corn, soy, wheat are way over produced and contribute to the massive obesity problem in this country, did someone say hi fructose corn syrup? You can tell I’m not a fan of mono-crop massive agri-business.
Hi, again. I know I’ve already commented, but I wanted to list a few more links that speak to your post. The web is filled with them as election day draws near. Lisen, I imagine California is all abuzz about this, too!
Here’s a post from Kim Stone, the President of the Civil Justine Association of California, discussing the legal and financial ramifications of Prop 37: http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/10/warning-voting-for-proposition-37-may-result-in-serious-financial-harm/
This one’s from the LA Times and Alexandra Le Tellier who wonders if the real problem is with the GMOs or the pesticides: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-why-im-not-voting-for-proposition-37-20121026,0,6955441.story
And one more… This one from author Hank Campbell who founded Science 2.0. He writes about the rational vs. irrational decisions we make about food: http://www.beinghuman.org/article/gmos-wont-kill-you-organic-cupcake-might
Great information. Thanks, Aimee
Listen, I think your example of having worked at Nestlé is a little different than this example because currently we have a couple of systems in place – organic and commodity. The USDA & FDA established guidelines years ago so certified organic excludes GMO products and commodity products include them. So the information is already available for those who feel they have a right to know. The number of choices in organic food has been growing. The real difference here is there is an interest to pressure non-GMO products, create fear when the government, the AMA, the WHO and many more say the science is safe.
So consider what actions are taken as a result of the label….
So is your assumption that all companies would simply put may contain GMOs on everything? Or have you considered whether companies would try to shift more to organic or create a new non-GMO line. If the second, more food would have the premium prices of organic food because typically less is produced per acre. If it is the third, their would need to be separate grain bins, elevators, barge shipments, etc to provide identity preservation.
How would you shop differently or what choices could you make based on the labels that you can’t make today?
Most people I have talked to really want to eat a healthier diet, avoiding GMOs won’t accomplish that diet. Looking at nutrition labels and thinking will. As Americans we have gone from having a small roll with dinner to eating sandwiches on massive buns. Wheat pizza regularly, not really thin like Italians usually have with a salad, we make pizza a meal. We eat big portions when we shouldn’t. We put rich sauces on everything. All of those things are possible with organic because more people want convenience or taste thanto think about the food they are eating and how that truly impacts them.
In your post, you mention the rat study by Seralini. There are so many scientists who have laid out all the scientific reasons it is grossly misguided. You can read http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ You may also find it interesting that while several academies of science aren’t fans or biotech, they have denounced their colleagues work as well. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/
There are other small points in your post that make me hope you will do additional research – for instance you mentioned the insecticide Roundup when Roundup is a herbicide. It doesn’t have insecticidal properties at all.
At the end of the day, I think our commons round is we want people to have heathy foods to choose from and businesses also want to provide foods people will buy so they make what they think we want. We can help people understand the choices they have, obviously you and I differ on GMOs but I bet we agree on the fact that most Americans need to eat more fruits and vegetables, consider how much sugar they get and think about portion sizes. I think GMOs can be part of a healthy diet, you don’t. We can buy different things in the grocery store, at the farmers market, etc.
Sorry, noticed autocorrect made Lisen into Listen on my post. Didn’t proofread. Many apologies.
Hi Janice,
I brought my Nestle experience up to debunk the argument that food manufacturers will automatically pass on the expense of changing labels to the consumer. No doubt some will and some may for a period of time but prices will stabilize again.
You suggest food manufacturers may elect to create non-GMO and GMO versions of their product to meet consumer demand. Well, of course, they will. That is what marketers do. They see consumer need and demand and meet it. Why do you think we have umpteen versions of cereal or chips or soda (I was watching TV and saw an ad for Gluten free Chex last night as an example)?
The real issue actually is the socio-economic implication. If all of those who can afford it are buying organic/non-GMO products, then will only the poor be eating GMO foods? And, if we discover there are heath implications, then what does this mean for our society? The poor could suffer and the wealthy yet again be at the advantage. Actually, this little experiment is already in place. Organic food is more expensive and farmer markets are more likely to be found in wealthier communities. Those who can afford to avoid processed foods and buy organic may well not suffer in the long term (again, this assumes there is a health impact of GMO foods).
You are totally right about the rat study. As I indicated, the study and others like it are what motivated Europe to prevent GMO foods. Also as I indicated, the long term implications of GMOs on human health have not been proven.
Finally, I originally wrote insecticide when referring to Round Up (meant herbicide but wrote my post late at night – no excuse though). The cycle of adaption is the same however. The plants and insects adapt to the chemical intended to kill them and then we have to find new chemicals they have not built up immunity to – eventually we have a never ending mobius strip chemical adaption.
At the end of the day, the Yes crowd is trying to create consumer awareness of GMOs. The corporations that employ GMOs are, understandably, not excited about this. I believe in the importance of providing the consumer information about what is in their food. I am not saying GMOs are good or bad – I believe we just do not know enough yet to make one statement or another on this. But information is power. I want to be empowered.
Thank you for your thoughtful and deep engagement. This is exactly why Aimee and I are working to find (un)common ground.
Lisen
P.S. Love that it auto-corrected Lisen to Listen – symbolic
The additional costs come from having to establish additional storage systems, transportation systems, etc. and from the fact that if you cannot produce as much per acre, you will need more land to produce the food, which will cost more.
While I appreciate your suggesting this is an educational campaign and consumer awareness, I’d suggest different methods would be far more effective. Regulations don’t educate people — if so we wouldn’t have a lot of problems.
Looking for long-term studies…. that’s a tough one. Nobody has ever done long-term studies on food. People started eating things that were growing and we have changed them in countless ways since. The reality is that scientists understand proteins in a way very few of us understand. As governments set up regulations, they rely on the science as agriculture, medicine, etc.
I agree that the nation is sorely uneducated about food and farming. Our lack of science education makes that even worse than it would be otherwise. That’s a lot of the reason behind my blogging as having grown up a city girl, I’ve spent my career working in agriculture. I have no idea if you’ve been reading information about biotech from the viewpoint of people who are actively engaged in it, but I’d be glad to help you hear from and engage with other viewpoints.
Also Aimee
Pesticides decrease plant antioxidants
So we don’t benefit as much by eating these treated plants In place of what might be a healthier plant or vegetable… to eat, there likely is pesticide residue from spraying. So this is really an unhealthy cycle
Rick, organic farmers use pesticides, too, including Rotenone and Bacillus thuringiensis. Also organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens like E. coli. I found this article from Christie Wilcox in Scientific American helpful to look at the perceptions vs. the real differences between organic and conventionally-produced foods: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Aimee
I think there is a reference in “Omnivores Dilemma ” by Michael Pollan. I’ll try to check on it.
Lisen, I agree with you that more information is good for consumers. However, I do not believe the kind of labeling being pushed by Prop 37 will provide accurate or more information for consumers. More likely, it will only serve to scare them away from eating affordable biotech foods that are materially the same as more expensive non-biotech foods. From the American Medical Association’s report (http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf):
“Regarding consumers’ ‘right to know’ argument, courts have found that consumer curiosity alone is not enough to require special labeling. The reasoning behind these rulings is that 1) special labeling places an unfair financial burden on industries that would have to investigate, document, and label the ‘level’ of bioengineering in their product; 2) it may mislead consumers into thinking that bioengineered foods are less safe than their conventional counterparts; 3) it places a burden on the FDA itself, which would have to divert resources away from safety-based labeling to address consumer curiosity; and 4) it places no end on the information consumers could request manufacturers to disclose.”
I like the AMA’s suggestion that the labeling be kept voluntary and I’m surprised Prop 37 supporters don’t find that to be a better option. Voluntary labeling allows food producers to present non-biotech as an advantage to consumers who care. The label “biotech-free” would be like “caffeine-free” in that it’s seen as a positive by those who are looking for that feature. Instead, Prop 37 would take a negative approach and demarcate biotech food that is materially the same as non-biotech food with a scary and vague “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” label. (Can you imagine a big old “CONTAINS CAFFEINE” label on a regular Coke? It’s just silly.)
Please understand I agree with you that consumers should have choices. I like choices and want choices. But I fear many Prop 37 supporters would very much like to see biotech foods run out of the market completely. As you and I both mention in our posts, that is not a solution with an eye on the future population growth.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the European rat study has been widely discredited (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33000/title/Further-Dismissal-of-GM-Corn-Study/) and LATimes columnist Michael Hiltzik took the Prop 37 campaign to task over using the flawed study to promote their cause (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121014,0,573516.column).
Aimee,
Let’s boil this down to the real issue here. My guess is the Yes crowd wants consumers to know about GMOs and to make sure they understand that most of the food we eat is genetically engineered (unless cnsumers are specifically buying organic).Monsanto is rightly concerned that this awareness may bring resistance. When the uninformed becomes informed, they may think GMOs are not the best idea and this could impact the profits of Monsanto. I continue to be of the belief that knowledge is best.
BTW, I too had read the rat study had been discredited which is why I tried to be clear that no real link has been made as of yet. We are in the process of one massive study right now. Who knows what will happen in 10, 15, 20 years after this nation has consumed all of these GMOs and after the weeds have adapted to other herbicides and so other chemicals have been forced to be introduced.
Lisen
Lisen, we’ve been consuming biotech foods for about 20 years already with no scientifically-proven adverse side effects. I don’t mean to sound morbid, but we’re all going to die at some point. We have to weigh out the risks vs. the benefits of biotech food: I think there is a greater risk that more people in the world will starve or suffer malnutrition without biotech foods than will die because of hypothetical side effects that may result from biotech foods somewhere down the line. Also I know there is a climate of distrust of all things corporate in America right now, but I cannot imagine that savvy business-people including those at Monsanto would put a product they know is harmful on the market or continue to sell it if it’s proven to be harmful. Our hyper-sensitive government regulatory agencies like FDA, EPA and USDA wouldn’t allow it either. Again, if the Yes crowd wants to educate consumers, they can do that without another label. For some (not all) Prop 37 supporters, I don’t think this is so much about educating consumers as it is about doing away with biotech foods for everyone.
PS: This is some great dialogue!
One very alarming problem with pesticides is that they down regulate the natural genes that plants use to fight predators. Those genes tend to produce antioxidants that are healthy for humans to injest
So in the end, spraying plants weakens them against natural predators and we are denied the benefit if ingesting these antioxidants. These same antioxidants round up free radicals in our bodies protecting our cells from mutation and cancer. We also injest the carcinogenic pesticides. End result may be a higher incidence of cancer in humans .
RIck,
Thanks for sharing. I had no idea about this and I am sure most of our readers didn’t either.
Best,
Lisen
Rick, I have not heard this before, that pesticides decrease our antioxidants. If you don’t mind, will you provide a link to the website or a book title for where you read this information? Thank you!