Information on
the Ballot Initiative in Humboldt County to Ban Genetically Modified Organisms
Mark S. Wilson, Humboldt State University, Department of Biology
Erik Hoyt
Biology 440
11/18/04
GMO labeling
Ever since their entrance onto the consumer market in the last two decades of the twentieth century, genetically modified organisms (often referred to as GMOs) have been getting mixed reviews from the public. Genetically modified consumer products (primarily food) have pushed the barriers of some people¹s comfort levels. Born out of either a lack of knowledge or a sincere concern for public health or the environment, a consumer rights movement has been planted around the world pushing for labeling of genetically modified food products. This movement has matured in many places to a degree where interest groups have successfully lobbied governments into adopting criteria for labeling transgenic food products. In other parts of the world strong agriculture interests have clashed with the aforementioned movements. A simple label on a can of beans would seem to easily solve this problem; however, governments have found that GMO product labeling is more complex than that. Considerations such as costs, international markets and cultures must also be taken into consideration, not to mention the public¹s perception and their level of trust in this relatively new product.
Research in both medical microbiology and agriculture laid the groundwork for what is modern biotechnology. This is newer science, seen by many to have officially begun with the discovery of recombinant DNA technology by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer in 1970 (biotech.ca 1). Recombinant DNA technology, aided by the use of restriction enzymes, allow humans to cut one part of a genome of one species that codes for a desirable trait and insert it into a different species in the hope of producing the same effect (biotech.ca 2). This is the basis of modern biotechnology and essentially defines a genetically modified organism. A generally accepted definition of a GMO is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered in a way other than by means of natural mating or natural recombination (Le Meur 1). Under this blanket definition, age old methods of horticulture and animal husbandry are also ways of genetic modification or engineering. However, common usage of the term implies the use of recombinant DNA technology.
An example of an organism that has been produced in recent years that fits the modern definition of genetic modification is Bt corn. This breed of corn derives it name from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, which has a gene that produces a protein that resists a common soil larva that is known to attack corn roots. Once inserted into the corn genome, it expresses the same trait as the bacteria (European Commision 1). This has ultimately saved millions of dollars and reduced growers¹ reliance on pesticides.
Because of the success of transgenic crops like Bt corn, the usage and availability of GMOs has increased exponentially. The number of GM crops produced in the United States grew from 1.45 hectares in 1996 to over 29 million in 2000. This accounts for about 70% of the total GM crops grown in the world (European Commission 2). Similar patterns have emerged from other agriculture-intensive countries like Canada, Argentina, China, and Brazil. Large percentages of products like soybeans (68%), cotton (50%) and corn (28%) are now genetically modified in some form or another (European Commission 3).
The influx of GMOs into the market in such a short period of time has resulted in a reactionary movement against genetically modified products. This effect is most pronounced in the countries of the European Union, where legislation has limited the marketing of genetically modified products. Regulations adopted in July 2001 can be generalized into two parts. The first part is complete traceability of all GMO products ³from farm to table.² The second part requires labeling on all products with genetically modified elements in them exceeding 1% of product content (Economist 1). Outside the European Union, levels of stringency vary. For example, Japan only requires a product label when GMO content exceeds 5% of total product makeup. Despite these varying levels of stringency, the trend towards GMO product labeling is catching on in other parts of the world. Australia, Switzerland, and South Korea all require food products meant for public consumption to be labeled. Other countries considering or in the process of having their GMO food labeled in a similar manner are Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia (Organic Consumers 1).
If countries as diverse as these require GMO labeling, then why doesn¹t the United States have such requirements? The answers to this question are complex, ranging from culture, commerce and politics. In particular, European countries traditionally have a food-based culture. That is, fine cuisine is considered more of an art form than in the United States and any ³pollution² by transgenic products is looked down upon (Economist 2). There is stronger sentiment against GMOs (which explains why less than 1% of genetically modified crops grown in the world are found within the European Union countries). It follows that any food that does have GMO elements in it must be labeled for the consumer to decide. Despite official recognition by governments in Europe that GMOs on the market pose no health risk, labeling is still required. Labeling is then generally seen as a consumer rights issue; equivalent to buying cosmetics marked ³cruelty free² or dolphin-safe tuna.
In the United States, unlike Europe, there is more mental and physical space between areas that produce crops for mass consumption and pastoral countryside. In France, for example, there is much disdain about the idea of having rural areas ³polluted² with genetically modified crops. This idea stems from the more general fear that GMO crops in close range could affect and interbreed with organic strains. Although there is a similar fear by some in the U.S., it is more comforting to most American consumers to know that the GMO cornfields of Iowa and the boutique organic farms and vineyards of Northern California are separated by thousands of miles (Economist 3).
Another reason why GMO labeling is not mandatory stems from the Bush administration. Their official stance on the issue is that labeling is unnecessary and that any labels on genetically modified products would do little but scare people away from otherwise harmless products (organic consumers 2). Their line of reasoning follows that placing labels on a benign food products would be seen by consumers in the same light as a warning label on a pack of cigarettes to consumers; that is, a warning about possible health effects. Agricultural interests in this country are also very strong and so far their lobbying power has outweighed the power of groups that would like to see labels on GM food (organic consumers 3).
Labeling along the same stringent lines that is required overseas may not only hurt demand in the domestic market, but also raise prices. It has been estimated that if European standards of labeling were adopted in the United States, it would add 30% onto the price of all food products (Economist 4). This expense would come from added administrative and analysis costs associated with testing every piece of food in every step of its processing. Since hardly any processed food is 100% GMO free, then one can see that tracking the history of any processed food would be a blow to industry both financially and logistically. Also, Americans have an unusually high trust in the Food and Drug Administration in determining what is safe for consumption and whether food needs to be labeled or not (Economist 5). Because of these two factors, GM food warning labels may never come into being in the United States and if they do, they are years away from happening.
Although the labeling debate may seem to be largely ideological, GMO labels are also used as ways governments can manipulate trade and protect domestic markets. In the case of soybeans, America exports 9 million tons abroad every year and governments wary about a flood of cheap American products into their home market support GMO labeling as a means of protecting their markets from foreign competition (Economist 6). If consumers already wary of genetically modified products see a label, then demand for that product will go down, or at least that is what is hoped. The European Union exemplifies this type of strategy; that is, aggressively pursuing labeling in order to protect home grown crops from foreign competition (Economist 7). This has forced the United States and other GMO heavy nations (Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa) to find other markets for their exports. For example, Indonesia now receives a large amount of GMO products from the United States. This has spawned resentment in Indonesia, seen by many as large corporations taking advantage of lax food regulations. Like so many countries before it, Indonesia may soon require genetically modified food labeling, based on current consumer demand (Organic Consumer 4).
GMO labeling is now mandatory in many parts of the world and the trend continues unabated as lesser developed countries take up the issue. This can both open up opportunities for education about transgenic crops and at the same time be risky in sparking more fear. Many countries in the world freely allow GMOs into their markets; however, populaces have yet to be convinced of the true nature of GMOs. Education would seem to be the most natural way in helping to assuage people¹s most general fears. Ultimately, when it comes to GMOs, one enters into a minefield of disinformation and exaggerations. It is hard enough for many people in lesser developed countries to get information about GMOs, let along correct information. To combat this, responsibility must be taken by governments, corporations and interest groups in providing correct information about genetically modified food; anything less than that would be a violation of consumer rights too large for any label to fix.
Works
Cited
-³Detailed Description of new GMO labeling in the E.U.² Organic Consumers Association. 2001. 10/5/04.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/gmolabing080101.cfm
-Diani,
Hera. ³Inodnesians Demand GMO labeling.² The Jakarta Post. November 4th
2001. 10/2/04. http://organicconsumers.org/gefood/indonesia110801.cfm
-³Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-food sector.² European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture. 2003. The European Commission. 10/4/04.
-³History of Biotechnology.² Biotechnology in Canada. 2004. 10/5/04
http://www.biotech.ca/EN/history.html.
-Le Meur, Herve. ³Re: Have Ground Rules been set for GMO definition?²
lemeur@diligo.fr. November 26th 2000.
-³Sticky
Labels.² The Economist. April 29th 1999. 10/5/04 www.economist.com.