GMO Labeling; Should it be Mandatory?

As technology around the world advances, so does the average life expectancy of the human. This longer lifespan has resulted in a need to feed more people than ever before. For the last few decades scientists working in large bio-chemical corporations have worked towards creating stronger plants that are able to survive drought and disease. This has resulted in scientists creating genetically modified foods (GMOs) that are now found in nearly every type of food supply. The major concern of consumers and watch dog groups has been the lack of education and information given to individuals who might be ingesting these products. Some people are very leery considering the fact that in the United States there are no laws that explicitly mandate the labeling of GMOs to make them identifiable. Monsanto is the leading force behind GMO research and sales around the world, and has continuously lobbied against the mandatory labeling of its products. This leads many people to wonder why labeling these products is so worrisome to companies like Monsanto. Is it perhaps related to GMO’s not being safe to eat? Is it better and more logical to use GMOs rather than natural foods? These considerations involve understanding the nature of the GMO, the big business behind it, as well as the connections between companies like Monsanto, and the government.

One major point that must be clarified to make a decision on the value of using GMOs, is to understand what a GMO is to start with. Varzakas et al. stated, “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally”. GMO’s have caused an enormous uproar in many of the different groups and activists throughout the world. Traditionally plants need to be protected from disease by the use of pesticides, which caused high amounts of spending, runoff into local water supplies, and disease in humans and animals. Each of these concerns have had intense ramifications and led to the creation of GMOs. With booming world populations it is also imperative that crops do not die out, because a single crop source dying can lead to the death and starvation of hundreds of people, as well as the crippling of the local economy that relies on said crop. GMOs are meant to stop these concerns by creating, in the lab, a plant that has the pesticide built directly into its DNA, making it unnecessary to spray any pesticides. The DNA is also manipulated to make the plan stronger in the face of drought and disease. Herein lies the power of GMOs; these plants are stronger and touted as able to save lives.

This logic alone does not take into account the belief held by many that lives can be put in danger due to the unknown factors of the DNA manipulations. Despite the positives, there are those who fear the unknown that these GMOs present which is why there is a push to regulate and label the product. Much is unknown about GMOs and their long term impact on the health of those who ingest them. Like with many other chemical and pharmaceutical developments, there may be underlying injury that could take decades to surface. Soil accustomed to these seeds also has difficulty returning to the non-GMO ones, as do the farmers that become dependent on them (Lianchawii 4284). The fear of the unknown is stemmed in the increased information that individuals have regarding health, carcinogens and the actual and possible links between these unknown factors and cancer. New research comes out every year linking probable connections between chemicals in our daily lives with increased cancers and a whole surplus of other medical illnesses.

These seemingly harmless plants have the backing of the companies that create them. These companies spend millions in research, and reap billions in rewards. Monsanto has been around for over 100 years and was founded and based in the USA. Monsanto started out with distributing artificial sugars and slowly moved into chemical trade business with the sale of household cleaners, and farming chemicals. Monsanto is at the top of the food chain in terms of this particular business and controls over 90% of the GMO seed market. That alone makes it obvious why they are so vested in its success and promotion (Zhou 1). With their power in the industry, they have been able to place top members of their corporation around the world to work with governments to block the usage of labeling and regulations.

The government is closely tied to many large corporations and Monsanto is one of the biggest ones. The impact Monsanto has on information that the public receives from the government can be distorted to meet their business needs. During the 2012 campaign season there was an effort to create laws that required GMO foods to be labeled for consumer awareness. Despite this being hugely popular by constituents, it was defeated with the help of millions spent on attack ads and misinformation campaigns spearheaded by interest groups funded and tied directly to companies like Monsanto. Like all big corporations these companies are concerned with intensifying profits as steadily as possible, this is the nature of a business, to grow. Monsanto has always been about profits, and will always be about profits, regardless of the negative impact on the public (Lianchawii, 4280). It is difficult to trust that a company concerned solely with the bottom line would take into consideration the long term health concerns of communities if those considerations could impact the monetary growth of the company.

The United States of America is one of the last countries to mandate labeling of the potential GMO products within the packages of our nation’s food supply. The company Whole Foods Market is doing its part in America and finally is shedding some light by voluntarily labeling their GMO products, the best they can. According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, “Approximately 80 percent of the food on grocery store shelves in the U.S. contains at least one GMO ingredient” (“Business News…”). With all of our food supply possibly integrated with some form of GMO food supply within it, could it cause possible risks for future and unmonitored usage? The answer to this question remains an uncertain one. With the lack of a clear answer one way or the other, both sides of the argument have been unwilling to negotiate in a meaningful way. Those who support GMOs argue that no clear link has been found and that those who oppose GMOs are fearing invisible monsters. On the opposing side many argue that an unknown is reason enough to be cautious with something as fragile as our health. This debated also has in the backdrop popular social movements towards organic products, as well as an overall heightened sense of attention towards food and health.

The prime issue that most of the people and opposition organizations have is with the lack of labeling required by the Government and FDA. The public want to know and have the right to know what they are ingesting, it’s about choice. Monsanto has been accused of flat out lying and promoting its products as natural when they are clearly not, increasing the need in the eyes of activists, for strict labeling (Kleinman and Kloppenburg 427). GMO companies have lobbied heavily to avoid their products being labeled so that their products can be identified to consumers (Ho and Ching 136). GMO companies must concede that consumers have every right to be cautious about chemicals going into their bodies. Nations like France have banned GMOs completely and do not allow their sale at all, regardless of being labeled clearly or not. GMO companies would do well to note that similar decisions can start being made in smaller communities and individual states. The best way to continue their work and business would be to agree to compromise on the education of GMOs and labeling of those products. Despite all of this these companies continue to fight labeling and see that option as a threat to their business. The fear of labeling increases the demand for labeling, because it appears as though the companies have something the hide.

Monsanto’s lobbying has aided in the passing of bills that relieve them from liability claims stemming from health concerns related to GMO products. The perceived and real cooperation between the government and Monsanto has not helped with the fears that many have concerning the possible dangers of GMOs. Some believe that the government stepping in on behalf of the pharmaceutical company is the correct course of action for the sake of the market and is therefore completely justifiable (Taylor 99). This attitude brings to surface the issue of business over health, and while GMOs are far from being banned, their labeling is also being taken off the table. Corruption and greed have scared the public in the past, and trust solely in the word of big businesses and the government are meaningless to millions of citizens. It is true that much of the negativity surrounding GMOs has not been shown to be valid in terms of actual connections between GMOs and health concerns. Despite this, there should be choice and every individual should be able to choose whether or not the risk is worth taking. Alcohol and cigarettes are labeled, but not banned. GMOs should similarly be labeled so that those who have legitimate concerns can avoid ingesting them. If an individual believes the fears are unfounded, or simply does not care, then they too should be able to make that choice. However, by not offering a choice at all, the government is laying with the side of corporate lobbying alone, one of the reasons the trust people have in them is so weak.

While I believe that GMOs have created useful and forward thinking solutions in an attempt to address problems faced by farmers these days, I believe it was done in a single minded and risky way. GMO Companies should not be entrusted with the supply of food that we ingest on a daily basis without some debate, regulation and labeling. There needs to be a reconciliation between the desire of large GMO companies to make money, and public health groups to protect consumers against the unknown long term effects of ingesting chemical laced GMOs. This is not to say that the work and research done by the GMO companies is not valuable, just that they should be regulated and watched to ensure that there is long term responsibility for health as well as a focus on solutions to current farming and crop supply concerns. The government will be vital to this balance and they need to step up and do the job they are meant to do. This job is not to accept lobbying as a means to get reelected at the expense of the public that should be served. GMOs may have long term health impacts that make their usefulness pale in comparison. Until conclusive results are found one way or the other, individuals must have the ability to purchase food with peace of mind. GMO products should be labeled clearly so that those who want them, and those who do not, can each make that choice for themselves.

There are pros and cons to nearly every issue in our nation and GMOs are the latest in a long line of them. GMOs can have health and farming implications for not just the US, but the entire world. I do not believe that the positive aspects of their use, come close to negating the many detrimental cons. GMO products should be clearly labeled to protect consumers who do not wish to consume, or have their families consume, food created in a lab with chemicals. Companies like Monsanto should be regulated to ensure that they are complying with the wishes of consumers, not just enforcing their will upon them.

Works Cited

"Business News; Whole Foods Market and the Non-GMO Project Celebrate Consumers' Right to Choose Foods without Genetically Modified Organisms." Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week, 2010, p. 4735.

Ho, Mae-Wan and Ching, Lim Li. GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply. Ridgefield: Vital Health Publishing, 2004.

Kleinman, Daniel L., Kloppenburg, Jack. “Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy.” Sociological Forum, vol. 6, no. 3, 1991, pp. 427-447.

Lianchawii. “Biosafety in India: Rethinking GMO Regulation” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 40, no. 39, 2005, pp. 4284-4289.

Taylor, George. “If No Risk Is Proven, Is There a Risk? Some Reflections on Risk, Science and Environmental Regulation in Ireland after Watson v EPA and Monsanto”. Irish Studies in International Affairs, vol. 17, 2006, pp. 99-114.

Varzakas, et al. "The Politics and Science Behind GMO Acceptance." Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, vol. 47, no. 4, 2007, pp. 335-61.

Zhou, Mary. “The Seeds of Corruption: The Monsanto Protection Act.” Berkley Political Review. 10 April 2013.