Organic farmer speaks out for GMO co-existence: Labeling might break impasse for the reasonable

The emails usually start arriving in April. “Do you sell organic vegetable transplants for home gardens?” they usually ask because “I want to avoid planting GMO tomatoes and peppers in my garden.” That’s strange as there are no GMO tomatoes or peppers.

A few weeks ago, I received this helpful list of organic and non-GMO seed suppliers via Facebook, with the comment, “a ‘lot’ of seeds planted in gardens are ‘unknown’.” It was reinforced with this image:

Screen Shot 2014-03-04 at 8.51.08 AM

Reality check: with the exception of a tiny fraction of summer squash and sweet corn, it would be literally impossible to purchase genetically-engineered vegetables seeds, as they don’t exist for sale.

What we need

But do you want to know what boggles my mind even more than these examples of unfounded fears and misleading claims that GMOs are in most fresh fruits and vegetables? The level of opposition to one most simple, effective remedies available to battle misinformation: mandatory labeling of GMOs.

I believe mandatory labels would be the best tool to provide clear, accurate and consistent information to consumers about foods containing, or derived from, genetically engineered crops and animals, and they would also be the best hope for advancing the GMO discussion.

The ideal labeling scheme would set a mandatory minimum requirement that any food containing ingredients from genetically engineered crops or animals bear a statement in its list of ingredients to the effect that “this product may contain ingredients from genetically modified organisms.” This could be supported by reference to the applicable ingredients (an asterisk in the ingredient list, for example). A product that had undergone a verification process would be permitted to make a “non-GMO” claim anywhere on its packaging, provided that there were analogous products from GMOs on the market. (In other words, no more bogus non-GMO labels on salt). Animal products would not bear this “may contain” statement unless the animals themselves had been genetically modified, although they could be voluntarily labeled to indicate feed sources that did not include GE crops.

What about costs?

The anti-labeling side often claims that GMO labels would drive up the cost of food. I believe a “may contain” label would minimize this risk. Companies that did not wish to go to any extra expense would simply add the “may contain” clause to their ingredient panel (updating packaging is an expense food companies routinely incur as a cost of doing business). Those who wished to provide a non-GMO product could choose to take the necessary steps and pass those costs along to the consumer—a percentage of which would presumably be prepared to pay the premium.

Wouldn’t “may contain” clauses be useless? Why can’t voluntary labels work? Can’t people just eat organic?

These objections are all based on the same misconceptions about what people know and what they want. First, the primary function of a “may contain” label would be not only to educate people about which foods are derived from GE crops and animals, but also to inform consumers about which ones are not.

If you don’t believe misconceptions and exaggerated beliefs about GMO foods are rampant, consider this polling data released just last week: in a survey of 1,200 Canadians, 60% of respondents believed that strawberries have been genetically engineered, while only 48% identified tofu as a GMO product. (Reality check: 0% of strawberries are GE, and GE soybeans, which are used to make tofu, represent about 90% of the harvest.)

Voluntary labeling schemes won’t work precisely because they fail to provide clear and consistent information. This is perfectly illustrated by the most popular voluntary labeling program in North America, the Non-GMO Project. A visit to its website yields lists of “Non-GMO Project Verified” products for which no GMO-derived analogues could ever be found on store shelves, including a wide range of fruits, vegetables, nuts, herbs, spices and even plain old salt, as I noted above. The Project claims to be the fastest-growing label in the natural foods industry, with over 14,000 products. It’s easy to see why; once one brand bears the label, all other brands are automatically under suspicion, especially if their products appear “too perfect.” It’s a great business model if you can afford the label; even more so if you’re the one selling the labeling service; but it’s a terribly misleading means of providing informed choice to consumers.

In like manner, advising people to eat organic is a viable alternative for people looking to avoid all GMOs and willing/able to pay the premium, but it does little to educate consumers about which products on the grocery store shelves have the potential to be derived from genetically engineered crops or animals.

What about consumer reaction?

Opponents of mandatory labels often claim that labels will be perceived as a warning; that labels are reserved for issues of nutrition or food safety and therefore are not appropriate in this case; and that the ultimate goal of labeling advocates is the elimination of GMOs from the food supply. In my opinion an awareness of how ubiquitous GMOs are in processed foods and yet how absent they are in other product lines will most likely elicit only temporary surprise, quickly followed by a collective shrug and the return to old habits. At best, this information could open or expand a niche for non-GMO (and not necessarily organic) alternatives—and creating value-added markets and diversifying cropping options for farmers could hardly be considered a bad thing. And if a percentage of consumers purchase organic fruits or vegetables in order to avoid GMOs, the organic market may find itself scrambling to re-position itself once these buyers have a more accurate perception of where GMOs can and cannot be found!

Whether or not a GMO label has a scientific basis or a precedent is a weak argument: labeling standards in general are constantly evolving in response to consumer demand. The goal should not be to retain tradition, but to retain relevance. While it is true that nothing short of the disappearance of GMOs will satisfy the extremists, mandatory labels will satisfy the democratic desires of the majority, thereby sucking a lot wind out of the sails of anti-GMO activists and others profiting from the fear of the unknown.

Finally, I do agree with those who state that labels, particularly “may contain” statements provide too little information. But we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. QR codes or other means to communicate a variety of detailed information to consumers is a great concept, but as a first step we need to level the playing field by providing a basic level of awareness.

What’s clear is that the current state of affairs isn’t working. Consumers are confused and growing increasingly distrustful of the food system. At this point in time, there is more to lose from the continued spread of misinformation and fear than there is to gain by avoiding the perception of a “warning” label on certain food items: in the absence of a clear, consistent labeling regime, all foods fall under increasing suspicion. The vacuum of clear, consistent, and accurate label information has sucked in all manner of festering worries, half-truths, and misconceptions—it’s time to clear the air.

Rob Wallbridge is an organic farmer and consultant based in Western Quebec. He advocates for high-quality organic food and informed communities in agriculture. Follow him on Twitter as @songberryfarm and on his blog, The Fanning Mill

64 thoughts on “Organic farmer speaks out for GMO co-existence: Labeling might break impasse for the reasonable”

  1. Speaking of misconceptions, how about the number of people who think organic foods don’t use pesticides…

    This is a well offered opinion by Rob and it addresses some, but not all, of the issues regarding labeling of gmo. First and foremost, every major, credentialed, respected food safety/scientific organization – I cite the US Natl’ Academy of Sciences – tells us that food and plants developed thru genetic engineering are every bit as safe as other methods of genetic modification (hybridization, mutagenesis, eg.) I suggest that if gmo products need to be labeled then so do these.

    And what other labels could we get – was my food picked by union labor? non-union? undocumented workers? What were the animals fed? How were they killed, processed, packed? Were my pepper flakes air-dried or machine-dried? This is really the tip of the iceberg & one could easily make the same case of “I have the right to know what I’m eating!” for all of them and many, many more (country of origin, date slaughtered/picked, etc)

    Here’s an alternate solution: let the free market exploit the public’s misconception and label products that are gmo-free. The market is already adept at psychological labeling – fat-free, healthy choice, natural, real flavoring, Lite, Lean Cuisine, no added sugar, gluten-free, etc. Non-free range chicken products do not require a label but savvy marketers take advantage of it. Organic farmers are not required to label “certified organic” or “100% organic” but it’s a message they want delivered. They pay for it because they want that label.

    No one is stopping anyone from labeling their product as “No GMO!” So if it’s really important maybe we could see that start to take place. But maybe we’d all be better served by informing the public of the reality of gmo – as safe as (arguably safer than) hybrid. One in seven people world-wide suffer the effects of malnutrition – maybe the well intention anti-gmo crowd could put their collective minds together & work on bringing some relief to that long-suffering group.

    And really, it would be great if organic producers listed the exact (and amount of) pesticides they use on their products. Thank you

    PS – No, I don’t work for Monsanto….

    Reply
    • Thanks, Tim. Seeing as we are in fact living under your alternate solution, I can only ask, “how’s that working for you?” And do you really think there’s not already countless efforts “informing the public of the reality of gmo” that have been going on for close to 20 years now? Show me the proof that all of this is increasing public awareness and acceptance of the technology. Otherwise, allow me to suggest that we stop doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
      As I stated in my post, I have no issue providing additional, factual information to consumers, provided we can find an effective, efficient means to do so. Fire up your campaign and make it so!
      I, too, would like to see all of our collective efforts put toward something more worthwhile – this is precisely why I’m suggesting we slap a label on it and move on!

      Reply
      • Hi Rob, thanks for the reply. I’m afraid that “slap a label on it & move on!” is a pretty sour proposition in the same fashion that I’m not in favor of “Oh go ahead & teach creationism in science books.” They are both slides in an anti-science direction and if I have a “campaign to fire up” it’s to counter such attitudes. In my opinion the anti-gmo movement is absurd – the collective argument is depressingly weak (I see parallels to the anti-vaccine crowd,) Giving ground with labels wouldn’t lessen anything. It would more likely embolden the movement toward other goals… getting restaurants to declare gmo menu items, banning gmo entirely, etc. all the while pointing to their “labeling success.” Simply allowing these labels is a mini-validation of the anti-gmo movement & “No thanks” to that.

        I believe a large part of the population are happy to be told what to think regarding food politics, if they care at all. Even those people who are interested are subjected to a large amount of misinformation & propaganda. The “may contain gmo” label is a little scarlet letter for all the uninformed, the slightly caring & those who care but don’t have time to weed through the crap. There’s plenty of “Beware of gmo” campaigning out there (Frankenfood!!!) & the under-educated might just accept the fear without checking out the facts. I’m disgusted when people get suckered into believing something this way. Clearly, the label could only work to the detriment of the gmo technology and this is anti-science.

        I appreciate your interest in this subject, and in listening to my point of view. I believe gmo technology should be embraced & encouraged – it’s success in medical applications (see insulin) is quite a human achievement (even tho someone probably made a buck.) Take care.

        Reply
      • Rob, could you please answer Tim’s first point about Organic pesticides? If informing and transparency are important to you, where are efforts to correct the public’s pervasive misconception that Organic doesn’t use pesticides? I think this is a factor many people consider when making the decision whether or not to purchase Organic foods. Shouldn’t they similarly be informed?

        Reply
        • I believe I’ve said a number of times that I have no objection to providing accurate, fact-based information to consumers. Obviously, to avoid the same kind of misleading disinformation that “non-GMO” labels currently provide, all food products, organic or not, would need to list the pesticides used.
          The organic market research I’ve seen lists a wide variety of reasons people purchase organic, and reducing pesticide exposure is just one. (And please note how I worded that – anybody who seeks out factual information on organic food quickly learns that “pesticide-free” is not guaranteed.)
          Really, though, this “organic uses pesticides” meme is a perfect example of how anti-organic forces employ exactly the same fear-mongering, anti-science tactics that they decry when used by anti-GMO activists: using half-truths and dubious correlations to prey on people’s misconceptions and worries.
          There certainly is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the use of pesticides in organic farming, and it’s coming from all sides – maybe I’ll address this in a future post!

          Reply
          • And how would a list of pesticides used be useful to consumers? Should we all be experts in agriculture or maybe just rely on our regulatory agencies to look out for us?

            The “organic uses pesticides” is not even a meme but used to illustrate a point. It’s a correction of a myth Organic happily has no interest in informing consumers about when it means more sales for them. (In fact they perpetuate this myth- Dirty Dozen much?) If this is a tactic of “anti-organic” please show me the campaign to label Organic as “uses pesticides”.

          • Just since we’re talking I find this interesting. Many people feel that organic practices & techniques are healthier, better for consumers, better for the environment, better for the planet. This is debatable to be sure but let’s assume it is true. Many (not all) gmo crops, since they are being grown & eaten anyway, could be grown via organic techniques & standards. This would be better, assuming organic is better, for people & the environment. But organic techniques cost more. To recoup these costs, organic foods are priced higher in market. In return they get to justify the high price to consumers by prominently & proudly displaying labels: 100% organic, certified organic, etc.

            But here’s the rub: gmo cannot get that label (by definition.) The product could be 100% organic (other than it’s gmo) but it still cannot display the label. This being the case there is no incentive for gmo farmers to use organic techniques – it’s actually quite a disincentive. These farmers would not be able to justify the higher price of their product with the special “Organic” label – it would just appear to be high priced non-organic food – such a product would be unlikely to sell.

            So simply because the organic movement wants to be disassociated with gmo, products that have been scientifically declared safe to consume, which are already being grown & consumed, which could be grown to complete organic standards, will not be. As a result, the consumers, the environment, the planet suffer… c’est la vie…

          • I think you’re oversimplifying things here, Tim. Lots of farmers of all kinds use “organic techniques” when appropriate, and not all of these techniques necessarily raise the cost of production. Depending on the crop and the management, cost of production for organic crops can actually be lower than conventional/GMO. The higher price for organic food in the store is actually related to a number of inter-related factors.
            Trying to reduce agricultural production to a simple GMO vs. organic dichotomy in order to score points for one side or the other pretty much takes reality out of the picture, in my opinion.

          • The only reason the cost of production for organic crops can, in rare cases, be lower than conventional/GMO production is because the organic industry benefits from all the pest and weed control going on around isolated organic farms.
            It’s the same with parents who don’t vaccinate their kids, and then boast that their kids don’t catch the measles. Well of course they don’t because the measles can’t reach these unvaccinated kids through the much larger population of vaccinated kids.

            Without the overwhelming majority of farmers across the land using pesticides, organic production would at best be half of what conventional/GMO production is. At worst it could easily be 100% less productive, in other words, complete crop failure.

          • Citation(s) needed. Failing that, it’s nice to know we can always count on you for entertainment value, Mischa!

          • There’s ballsy,… and then there’s citing your opinion as proof of your opinion. Thanks again for your contribution.

          • You didn’t think I had a citation. I did.

            Studies that estimate the productive capacity of organic farming all fail to take into consideration the pest and weed control going on around isolated organic farms.
            And this is a significant factor because without this, organic productivity could easily drop below 50%, and as our grandparents and great-grandparents experienced, reach as low as 0%… in other words, total crop failure.

          • Hey Rob – I am not interested in “scoring points” and I am not on “any side” – Perhaps you are revealing something about your own character here – you have apparently taken “a side.”. I am only interested in the reality, am never trying to distort it. Organic products cost more for a reason & the label is obviously important, so important that a movement worked hard to make sure gmo could not get the so labelled.. Simplified? yes. Accurate? yes. If you’d care to explain why organic foods across the board cost more than similar non-organics please do so. I still contend that without the label, some farmers, many farmers, would not incur this extra expense. If you disagree with this very gentle & I think obvious, point so be it.

            Additionally it seems you are engaging “motivated reasoning” with your comments (not an insult.) Maybe not. Maybe you consider yourself completely objective but there is no doubt that you bought into the organic movement a long time ago. You’ve been an organic apprentice, inspector, & you operate an organic farm (Linkedin.) You most definitely have a financial stake to advance your pro-organic viewpoint. I, on the other hand am not burdened by this. My only stake is my credibility. My friends & family rely on me to give them the best info possible on a subject (food politics) that is routinely bombarded by propaganda. Only close inspection of reality guides my opinion. When I find I am mistaken, I adjust my viewpoint. I used to buy the organic schtick but as my research grew I found I couldn’t justify it. So modify I did.

            I am not anti-organic but I do not believe any of the hype as far as safer, better for the environment, more nutritious or healthier in any way. But if people want to believe that who am I to interfere. They believe & some farmers cater to that. Live & let live….

            Best luck to you in your endeavors. My hope is that you’ll allow yourself to better be able to objectively examine the reality of organic, non-organic, gmo, hybridization, mutagenesis, etc. Let’s hope for a better world where we use our science, all of it, including gmo, to promote increasing food production instead of limiting it. I imagine the survivors out of the billion underfed world-wide would appreciate it. And a sincere thanks for listening & considering my opinions.

          • Hi Tim,
            Thanks for your response. My personal philosophy is that everyone, and every source of information, comes with a certain degree of bias: 100% objectivity and a view of “reality” free from bias is literally impossible for humans to achieve. We all take “a side,” to some degree or another. The best we can hope to do is recognize our own other others’ biases and try to incorporate that into our understanding of things.
            You’ve obviously taken some time to try to understand my biases, but I think you may be jumping to a few conclusions based on your judgement of what you think those things mean – you’re making a lot of assumptions about what I have or have not examined or experienced, and my conclusions.
            Again, I don’t have the space or time to fully explore the costs of organics topic but you can probably figure a lot of them out for yourself if you consider factors such as: supply and demand, economies of scale, and value propositions – the distribution, sale, and marketing of food involves a whole lot more than the farmers’ cost of production!
            The premium for organic food is certainly a factor for many farmers, but not the only one; I know many who grew organically without a premium market and would continue to do so. Those who are in it *only* for the money don’t tend to last long.
            My hope is for a well-fed world, too, but I am well aware that producing more food is a relatively small part of the solution. I also hope for a beautiful, biologically diverse world. I believe that science, in the fullest sense of the word, can help us achieve both goals.
            Thanks again for all your comments, Tim. It’s nice to find people willing to engage in informed, rational discussions.

          • Wow! That is SO fascinating, Mr. Popoff, and makes me even angrier over the organics scam! I used to be an anti-GMO activist, as well as one of those moms who only feeds their kid organic produce. Then, I discovered the truth about GMOs, which led me to the truth about organics. Ugh. SO disillusioned with it all!

            I had never thought about organic farmers being in the same category as anti-vaxxers who sponge off of others’ vaccines. Blech. How infuriating. Thank you for pointing out this wonderful analogy!

          • I too have read studies about organic farmers taking advantage of their proximity to GE farmers; because of the proximity, the organic guys have less weeds, less insects. It’s like a bicyclist taking advantage of the tailwind by riding behind a large truck. (And then trying to blow up the “gmo truck” that’s actually helping them, with their vacuous anti-gmo rhetoric… goose / golden egg, anyone?)

          • Our sugar beet farmers get 40% more yield. With less environmental impact. I would love to hear your explanation as to why organic food is related to a “number of inter-related factors” other than the fact that it’s what the market will bear, and that it costs more per acre to grow organic.

          • “organic sugar beets” – ? really? Nope. 99% of sugar beets in the US are GE. There ain’t no organic variety. Option: Get your sugar from Mexican cane sugar. Testing and product safety? Oh, that you’ll have to do without …. so sorry …

          • Exactly! And list the organic pesticides (and manure, yum) they use. Interested folks can look up the toxicity online.
            This all seems to be the anxiety of the organic industry finding itself paying lotsa big bucks for obtaining USDA organic certification, and then being undersold by the “Non-GMO” label. They’re panicking. So that’s one reason they’re going after gmo labeling; to try to recoup a bit of the market share they’re losing.
            It’s all about money, and anyone who says otherwise is a shill for deception or just plain ole ignorance.

          • Look at the recent labeling measures: “accurate” is a laff. They’d require labeling of sugar made from GE sugar beets (uh, sugar — after processing — has NO GE protein in it; same with canola oil), and would exclude from labeling most foods one can buy. About as “accurate” as a salesguy trying to sell you a washing machine, and telling you it’ll work about 1/3 of the time. Oh, but you get to pay the full price for it.
            The labeling initiatives have been full of sloppy drafting and unconscionable inconsistencies. Voluntary labeling for anyone who wants to “slap a label” on their highfalutin’ organic or “non-gmo” food is a better solution.

        • Yeah; I’d like to see a label “slapped on” those organic foods that come from organic seeds modified with irradiation and blasting with chemicals (mutagenesis). Just “slap a label” on ’em.

          Reply
  2. I believe that democracy would best be served when mandated policy is informed by science and reason, not an irrational whim of a vocal minority. Anything less undermines the foundation of these principles. It’s a sad state of affairs we’re already in when companies voluntarily and so nonchalantly employ disingenuous campaigns to sell us products. For this type of behavior to infect our democratic governing bodies is the wrong direction to take. Cynicism is already running rampant and we needn’t contribute. As much as a pro-biotech advocate as I am, I would rather fight the harder fight of finding solutions to better inform our citizens than to devise ploys to score on the anti-GMO opposition. They may not be playing fair but we don’t have to stoop to their level to win.

    Reply
    • I’m all for finding better solutions to better inform our citizens – it’s why I wrote this post! In my view, mandatory labeling would do this, while putting a stop to some of the most disingenuous campaigns. As for devising ploys to score on the anti-GMOers and stooping to their level, check out some of the blatant lies and misinformation being spread about organic food – you won’t need to go much further than this very page!

      Reply
      • The better solution is not to capitulate to a ruse we all know is not an attempt to better inform. That is a patronizing attitude to the citizens of our democracy and the very least to consumers spending their hard-earned money. The historical precedent where we fail this is not a good justification to continue.

        Reply
        • So are you opposed to labels, or opposed to the idea of failure in this battle? I’m beginning to perceive that a lot of the anti-label rhetoric is really borne out of hatred of the other side and a dogged determination not to let them win. Which is fine, I suppose, as long as you don’t expect the other side to respond in anything but like manner.

          Reply
  3. “Whether or not a GMO label has a scientific basis or a precedent is a weak argument: labeling standards in general are constantly evolving in response to consumer demand.”

    This is both false and wrong. Labeling standards are and should be based on science and nutrition, not the whims and fears of the consumer herd or hipster food fads. Science is the very best and strongest argument there is and claiming otherwise indicates an agenda at odds with science and reason.

    Reply
    • What is the science behind “contains peanuts, sugar, palm oil, salt” (as it says on the label of peanut butter)? Nutrition claims, health claims, yes; back those up with scientific studies. But simple ingredients? If I decide to buy a different brand of peanut butter that doesn’t contain sugar, is that “at odds with science and reason”? You may call my wanting to buy peanut butter without sugar a fad, or say there is nothing wrong with sugar, but I think it is my right as a consumer to make a choice, and to avoid sugar if I want to.
      Produce now also comes with labels of origin. I can get blueberries grown in Maine or grown in Mexico. My reasons for choosing one over the other may have nothing to do with food safety or nutrition. But since origin is labeled, I can choose, and it’s not a matter of “whims and fears”.
      Scientific studies may or may not support wanting to avoid sugar. They may not support those who want to avoid GMOs.
      But what justification is there for wanting to hide that information? What hardship does it cause to include that information on a label, and to whom?

      Reply
      • Peanuts, sugar, etc. are all ingredients. Genetic modification is a process, not an ingredient. For example, soy oil made from GMOs contains zero GMOs at the end of the processing. So labeling would be deceptive. Country of label origins are not mandatory. We already have voluntary labels for non-GMO products…the non-GMO label and organics–so that concern has been addressed. When the information that’s proposed to be presented in a label is not nutritionally relevant, no need to label. If we go down that rabbit hole, than tons of things should be labelled. I want organic food labelled: 10% of organic foods may contain listeria or salmonella that could sicken or kill you. How’s that for a label? And why not? It provides meaningful information that aids consumer choice. Don’t I have a right to know?

        Reply
        • So the percentage of real fruit juice in my beverage is a matter scientific importance? Concentrating orange juice isn’t a process, and it’s nutritionally relevant? Sorry, these arguments just don’t hold water.
          The use of the word “from” in my proposed label gives no indication of whether or not GE material could still be found in the final product, and is therefore not deceptive.
          Finally, labels need to be fact-based: there’s more evidence to suggest that GMOs cause cancer than there is that organic foods pose a higher food safety risk due to bacterial contamination.

          Reply
          • I don’t understand what you are saying. How did I reinforce your point? Do you have any links to reputable studies that show that GMOs cause cancer? That is all I really want to know. I am sincerely asking because I have not seen any. They are all either inconclusive or have been thoroughly debunked.

          • Sorry. To be clear, all the studies I’ve seen linking GMO to cancer have been inconclusive or thoroughly debunked, too. And this still represents more evidence than I’ve ever seen that organic foods present a higher food safety risk – both statements are myths.

          • This is as false a parallel as they come. You’re attempting to compare the pre-release safety and efficacy testing conducted on GE seeds to contamination monitoring for food crops – it’s apples and oranges.
            The simple fact is that ALL food, organic, GMO, or conventional, bears the same risks for bacteriological contamination and they are ALL subject to the same monitoring and testing procedures and protocols.
            In addition, the integrity of organic products are verified via a rigorous certification process developed and continually refined by a wide stakeholder community over the past few decades. That process can and does include testing when deemed appropriate. These are the facts.

          • Ah yes, that “rigorous certification process” which does not include any testing of organic crops in the field to ensure they’re safe or genuine.
            Record-keeping and record-checking does not ensure anything Rob. Ever heard of Bernie Madoff?
            As for the fact that this organic certification process was “developed… by a wide stakeholder community over the past few decades,” I think what you’re trying to say is that the multibillion dollar organic industry got to write its own rules.
            How objective. Nothing to see here folks! Move along.

  4. Hello Rob. I think we know from our previous discussions that we have some disagreement here. I believe you are correct, however, that those people who look at labels would eventually shrug it off and ignore it if they so chose. Past surveys have indicated this is a common outcome for European consumers where GE is labeled. I would guess, however, that the companies involved will be reluctant to take that gamble with their business.

    You say “… 60% of respondents believed that strawberries have been genetically
    engineered, while only 48% identified tofu as a GMO product.” My question is, so what? Are that many actually being swayed to avoid strawberries and tofu because of potential GE? I doubt it. As a side note, several people on twitter have been searching for GE varieties that would be used in tofu, but I don’t believe they have found any yet. GE soy for tofu does not seem to exist.

    Finally, I’ll ask: is mandatory labeling really necessary if few people actually have concerns? In the US, recent polling has shown the number of people who identify GE as a labeling concern is very low. It is only when they are prompted on the specific idea of a GE label, that the large %’s for labeling appear. I can easily imagine a similar response to labeling dihydrogen monoxide. Survey here: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-americans-attention-genetically-foods-survey.html

    Reply
    • Indeed, please, I cannot find a single carton of GMO tofu here in Chicago, Illinois USA and I looked everywhere! Oh, actually is Mr. Walbridge arguing for GM labeling exclusively for Canada? I guess I didn’t consider that, sorry if I assumed.

      Reply
    • Well, I would certainly HOPE dihydrogen monoxide would be labeled! I’ve had two friends die from it …

      (and both were good swimmers, but what the hey. Oceans and lakes should be labeled. Just sayin’.)

      Reply
    • Thanks Anastasia and Bill for sharing this information. The poll I referenced in my post also included data that contradicts many of the findings in the Rutgers survey, so perhaps there are significant difference in consumer attitudes between Canada and the U.S.
      Nevertheless, let me turn the question around and ask you: if so few people would really care (as I, too, argued), why not just do it in the least disruptive way possible, clear the air, take the wind out of the sails of the right-to-know crowd, save everyone millions and millions of dollars wasted in battling state-by-state initiatives, and move on to more important things?

      Reply
      • Hi, Rob
        I just want to jump in and add my 2 cents worth to the debate. I think putting a GMO label on food products that contain GMO ingredients will not stop people from eating them. Cigarettes are a prime example, they put warning labels on them informing people they might get lung cancer. Does that stop people from smoking them? Maybe some people heed the warming but most people don’t. People that don’t heed the warning eventually end up getting addicted to them.

        Put a GMO label on Doritos and Mountain Dew aren’t going to stop people from drinking or eating them. Generally the common thinking in todays society is, if it taste good it can’t be bad for you and therefore people are going to keep on eating them. So I don’t think putting a GMO label on a thing like junk is going to cause some mass hysteria amongst junk food lovers.

        Reply
          • Yes I understand Rob isn’t driving people away from GMOs but he is saying putting a GMO label food products would help consumers make an informed decision. I’m just saying I don’t think people are going to stop eating certain junk food just because it says it was made from foods that were derived from genetic engineering. If these people already don’t care about what they’re eating and their health why would they care about eating food that contain GMO ingredients? Pepsi cola & Frito-Lay won’t go out of Business because GMO labeling.

            I would also half to disagree with Jon’s statement “genetic engineering is a process not a product”. Genetic engineering is a product and it’s called Roundup ready and Monsanto sells it by the bag.

          • Paul, Round-up is glyphosate, which is a synthetic chemical herbicide that preceded by decades the introduction of GMOs. You probably use it on your lawn. Only a decreasing of fraction of GMO crops use glyphosate tolerant seeds. Simply said, GE is NOT Round-up.

          • Yep I’m aware Roundup is not a product of genetic engineering. Roundup is created through a process derived from mixing certain chemicals together. The end result mixing the chemicals together produces the product Roundup herbicide. It’s the same thing with Roundup Ready crops. Putting in the strain of DNA into the plant cell from the Cp4 bacterium to make it Roundup Ready is the process called genetic engineering. The end result of that process to make the plant Roundup Ready is the product called The Roundup Ready crop system. Every process leads to the creation of something, including the process of genetic engineering.

            Even the process of genetic engineering is a product in a sense because Monsanto has patent rights on some genetic engineering techniques that they have licensed out to other biotech firms for a huge chunk of money. Monsanto has exclusive patent rights to it.

          • It depends on what side of the fence your on and it also depends on what one side may or may not stand to gain or lose from labeling GMOs. Over all I don’t think labeling GMOs will not cause total rejection of GMOs. I think we should label them and see what happens. By the way I also think we should label food created through mutation breeding.

          • See, and there’s the rub. Regardless of how being (correctly) informed affects me personally, I would never disinform others. It isn’t ethical. There is no “depends and there is no “fence”. While I think GMO labels can act as a warning, my issue is with the way compelled labeling would disinform. I think voluntary labeling NonGMO does the same thing but at least that’s a voluntary admission of disinformation. It behooves advocates to then better arm consumers with the critical thinking tools they need.

            Do other Organic farmers you know have attitudes similar to yours?

          • Pretty much every organic farmer and some conventional farmers that I know of think GMO food should b labeled.

            If the biotech industry had done a better job 18 years ago informing the public on what a GMO was there probably wouldn’t be so much opposition & speculation about GMOs. Naturally people feel that when someone refuse to put a label on something that they have something to hide. On the other hand Monsanto didn’t waste any time on advertising and educating the farmer on the benefits of RR crops. It was an easy sell to the farmers. It’s like anything, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

          • I wonder why every Organic farmer wants compulsory labeling. Help me out here, what could it be?

            Sure, biotech can do some better outreach efforts but you’re victim blaming. Organic is the leading the charge with their rent-seeking efforts.

          • Yes the public has a right to know how there food is grown.I want to know if pesticides are spliced into my food and also sprayed on top.That alone deserves a label regardless no matter what side of the fence you are on.

      • I’d be surprised if CA and US consumers are really that different. Do you have a link to the actual poll? I couldn’t find it. It was sponsored by the BioAccess Commercialization Centre, but I could not locate anything on their site about it. This is important, because as the link I posted indicates, how the question is asked is extremely relevant. The use of the term “genetically modified” or “GMO” triggers an immediate negative connotation, which is a problem in surveys and also indicates why companies don’t wish to associate themselves with those terms. That well was poisoned long ago by anti-GMO advocates.

        The problem is not that there are just a few objectors, but rather that they are very vocal and control the majority of the media exposure. While they exhibit a large influence over the conversation, I don’t feel we should capitulate to a minority for the sake of pleasing them (The US Supreme Court, in fact, has agreed with this stance in regards to other labeling issues). Recent events with Cheerios suggests that labeling, in fact, will not take the wind out of their sails. On the contrary, it simply gives them a sense of empowerment to keep making demands. Many prominent anti-GMO advocates have also indicated their true goal is a complete ban. These types of responses understandably make businesses very wary of testing those waters.

        Reply
        • My understanding is that the poll results will be published at the end of the month. When I have time, I can look deeper into the methodology and share some more details.
          In my opinion, the activist response to a non-GMO label on Cheerios cannot be equated to the response to a mandatory GMO label. Nor can the goal of a complete ban be taken seriously.

          Reply
          • Unless the poll leaves the respondents with an open choice without prompting then the poll won’t really tell us what people care about. Another way to do a study on what people care about is to use economics – how much more will people pay. But you can’t just ask them, you have to do a behavioral study.

  5. Besides the fact that there’s no legitimate safety issue, and besides the fact that a vague label of “may contain…” is simultaneously uninformative and misleading, and besides the fact that making policy based on other people’s misinformed claims is kind of a stupid idea for policy-making in general…

    A government label will not stop the shouting and confusion. I know that some people are ready to concede on having something on a label just to end the drama. But it won’t stop it. There will be continued kvetching about what is and isn’t GMO as new tech comes along, enforcement, and the co-opting of the regulations by “big organic” which is already a source of complaint on the well-established US organic standards.

    A third-party certification is definitely the way to go. Just like the organic community, the Kosher community saw scandals, misleading claims, attempts to use government enforcement, and all of these really just didn’t work for what they really wanted to accomplish. Their system is flexible, more easily implemented, customizable for sub-community needs, and sustainable among themselves. It also supports education and business in their community. For people interested in this issue, you should read the book I talk about here: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/08/what-is-kosher/

    Reply
  6. “…expanding the niche for non-gmo…..” Sorry; that’s just simplistic. It can’t be done with some products. Pretty hard to find non-GE sugar beets. So are you suggesting that sugar beet farmers just throw up their hands and go out of business? And sugar will then come in from Mexico from cane sugar? (wanna know how Mexico oversees the safety / etc. of its cane sugar? Don’t ask.)

    Reply
  7. As an organic farmer, it must be on purpose that you don’t mention cross pollination, nor that it could lead to the end of organics.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.