We need GMO labeling

Genetically modified organisms are causing quite a fuss these days. Health and environmental advocates are waging an aggressive nationwide campaign, calling on states to require GMO labeling. People have a right to know what’s in their food, they say.

Meanwhile, the producers are pushing back, saying that GMO labeling would cast undue suspicion on genetically engineered products, which now account for the overwhelming majority of the food sold in U.S. supermarkets.

More than 70 bills that would mandate labeling or prohibit GMO farming have been proposed in 30 states, according to the Center for Food Safety. Vermont recently became the first state to require labeling, and its new law will take effect July 1. We believe states should exercise their right to self-determination –– and require labeling of foods containing GMOs. People should understand what they’re eating. We believe in transparency in all its forms, including product labeling.

In New York, Senate Bill 485, which would require GMO labeling, is now in the works. It sits in the Consumer Protection Committee, headed by Chairman Michael Venditto, a Republican. Bronx state Sen. Gustavo Rivera is a co-sponsor of the legislation, but Riverdale’s state Sen. Jeff Klein is not. The fact that two members of his breakaway group of Democrats are co-sponsors is encouraging, and Mr. Klein should follow in their footsteps. He also should use whatever influence he has as an ally of Senate Republicans to push the legislation forward.

Some 80 percent of all food sold in the U.S. is genetically modified to some degree, according to the Non-GMO Project, which certifies food that is GMO-free. Most people are not aware of that fact, but they should be. Research is under way to determine the possible long-term health and environmental impacts of GMO food production. In the U.S. scientific community, there is widespread agreement that GMOs are safe, even beneficial, while in Europe they are treated with greater concern by scientists and government officials.
In many ways, the jury is still out on GMOs. Genetically modified food did not appear on U.S. supermarket shelves until 1994, according to the nonprofit GMO Inside, which is committed to removing genetically modified organisms from the food chain. In the grand scheme of things, that isn’t a great deal of time to determine whether they are entirely safe.

Many people want to buy food in its natural state, free of genetic engineering. They worry about possible harmful health effects. That’s to be expected. We have been told before that science had triumphed over nature, only to learn later on that that just wasn’t so. Fifty years ago, the scientific community told us that baby formula designed in a laboratory was as healthy, if not healthier, for newborns than mothers’ breast milk. Now we know better. Breast milk contains lots of omega-3 fatty acids necessary for brain development, along with a host of proteins and immune system boosters that scientists are incapable of replicating in a lab.

The largest agricultural chemical companies are designing genetically modified plants to “resist” — survive — herbicides. Monsanto has engineered corn seeds to resist its Roundup herbicide, which contains glyphosate, a probable carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization. Roundup-ready plants and similar GMOs allow farmers to spray at will. Increasingly, they are over-spraying, says Rianna Eckel, a Food & Water Watch field organizer. That’s terrible for the environment. Among its many ills, excessive herbicide spraying kills the wild milkweed plant that monarch butterflies feed on during their annual migration from Mexico to the U.S.’s Northeast. There’s nothing wrong with consumers choosing non-GMO products to protect the environment.

GMOs aren’t all bad, of course. A genetically modified strain of the papaya plant saved it from extinction when it was ravaged by the ringspot virus in the 1990s. The rice plant has been engineered with greater nutrients. And the list goes on.

That’s why we don’t need an outright ban on GMOs. Their labeling, though, would allow consumers to make informed decisions about the food they eat, based on sound information and their own beliefs about how best to maintain their health and that of the environment.

A version of this editorial originally appeared in our sister publications, the Long Island Herald newspapers.