Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?

 <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss>



FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s ‹
genetically modified organisms ‹ you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and  sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon ‹ the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last ‹ may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential  benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent ‹ it¹s called Europe ‹ is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in
the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are
cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of
its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.  Under the
clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
<

 

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids.  It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted.  Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation.  There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding.  It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua.  Pretty radical change
there.  All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu.  We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such.  If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled.  For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy.  People should know if they are eating something
different.  But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

 despen@verizon.net wrote:


There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species.  Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance.  Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

 

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

 

That's true but see my comment about poison ivy and kudzu.

The combination would be beneficial to the plant.
Humans would have another reason not to go near the plant
but it wouldn't be a good thing.

The Wikipedia article raises a number of disturbing things
about corn bred to kill insects.  Probably most ironic is
that if this is used widely, we'll almost certainly get
insects that are immune.