Gmo Labeling Is Bad

GMO labeling is important because there is uncertainty in the safety of GMOs, which indicates a need for long term monitoring, therefore labels are needed to facilitate monitoring by the scientific community and diagnosis by healthcare professionals. The point being made here is that, while the technology of GMO appears to be safe and has been in use commercially for nearly 20 years, it is nonetheless prudent to watch for problems (Dahl). In their scholarly article titled “’Does Contain’ vs. ‘Does Not Contain’; Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?”, John Crespi and Stephan Marette quote statistics showing that “…21% of Americans feel that GM foods pose ‘serious safety risks’…”, and that the percentages for European nations range from 30%

to 65% (328). These statistics show that the general public is definitely uncertain about the safety of GMOs. Looking a little deeper, we find that doctors and scientists are concerned too. Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “I know dozens, personally, of scientists from all kinds of backgrounds … who have serious questions about [GMO] technology” (qtd in Ball). And finally, a reference that is representative of the global community’s social and political position on GMOs. In June of 2014, Dr. George Amofah, General Secretary of the Ghana Public Health Association, published recommendations regarding the use of GMOs in the country of Ghana. Amofah identifies, among others, increased incidence of allergies, “…increasing trends of organ disease and GMOs use,” and the concern that there is a “Potential for unpredictable, unintended mutations in the organism with consequential medico-legal events” (118). The safety of GMOs is unpredictable, and that’s why it can never be proven. Is this an exaggeration? No. Is this the only thing that could go wrong? No. Since their safety is unpredictable, genetically modified organisms need to be watched. The importance of GMO labeling for the purpose of monitoring becomes apparent, as is confirmed by Amofah as he continues, “All GMOs must be appropriately labeled as such for informed choice and to facilitate post-market monitoring of any health effects” (118). These global concerns are echoed by Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union, in Richard Dahl’s Environmental Health Perspectives article for the National Institutes for Health as he emphasizes the importance of labeling for monitoring. This is likely the most important reason to support labeling of GMOs. In order to watch GMOs, they need to be labeled so scientists, doctors, and consumers can know where they are. In the long run, monitoring GMO safety for health and environmental issues is essential. Monitoring for safety is greatly hindered when labeling is absent. With accurate labeling of GMOs, scientists and doctors can more capably watch for problems and then will be able to respond to them more appropriately. It is time for the FDA to implement mandatory federal GMO labeling standards to facilitate monitoring of GMOs in the environment and health care.
It is important that the FDA expeditiously implement mandatory federal labeling standards for GMO products and foods to relieve the states from having to make and defend their own labeling laws. This is important to the general public because if the people and the states must, in the absence of federal standards, make their own labeling laws, it will result in a tremendous expense in both time and money on our legislative system. “There are currently 84 bills on GMO labeling in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures …” (Ball). If the FDA were to make federal standards for mandatory GMO labeling, then the states would not have to make their own. That would save a lot of time and money for the states. Unfortunately the FDA appears not to have taken the people’s desire for labeling seriously up to this point. The people can’t make the FDA take action because the system doesn’t work that way, but what they can do is put initiatives on their states ballots to implement labeling laws at the state level. Until the FDA takes action, the people will continue to bring more state legislation forward. Their efforts at the state level are already becoming more successful and have passed in three states recently (Ball). Beyond the hassle of designing and petitioning for ballot initiatives lies the expense and time required to defend the laws, from opposition, once they are enacted. “[Vermont’s governor] Shumlin told me he expects the law to survive, noting that in anticipation of just such litigation lawmakers included $1.5 million in funding to defend the law in court” (Ball). State after state will have to do similar work to serve the needs and desires of their constituents. In another effort to block GMO labeling, opponents have proposed legislation to make it illegal for the states to enact GMO labeling legislation (Ball). It is time for the FDA to take the concerns of the people and their state legislatures seriously and move forward in implementing federal standards for mandatory GMO labeling.
It is important to label GMOs in order to promote an environment of trust and cooperation with the global community. When the U.S. ships its GMO crops to other nations can’t verify or doesn’t properly disclose that they are genetically modified organisms it creates anger, fear and distrust for U.S. trade because the U.S. is not being respectful of the labeling concerns of its trading partners. This is important because, “At least 64 countries have established some form of mandatory labeling” (Byrne, Pendell, and Graff). It is time for the United States to be more considerate of the concerns of the countries it trades with and move forward with GMO labeling.
It is important for the FDA to implement mandatory federal labeling standards for GMO products and foods because federal standards will be much more acceptable to the food industry and grocers than a hodgepodge of legislation from individual states.

Ball reports, “In the wake of Vermont and other state efforts, the food industry … is clearly panicked by the potential for a 50-state patchwork of conflicting labeling requirements that could force manufacturers to package, say, potato chips differently from one state to another. (An estimated 60 to 70 percent of processed foods contain GMOs).” The food industry does not want labeling requirements to be implemented at the state level because it will be difficult to comply if the laws are different in each state. It makes a lot of sense for the food industry and grocers to have a federal standard to meet rather than trying to accommodate different laws in each state. In a report titled “GMO Labeling Gains Steam Across United States”, published by Quality Progress, Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It, a national advocacy campaign says, “It’s simply a matter of time” until federal labeling standards come, because he believes the food industry will prefer that to a plethora of state regulations (qtd in GMO). Also in “GMO Labeling Gains Steam” it is reported that the opposition claims that consumer prices could rise as much as $400 a year just to add labels or swap ingredients for one state, California. Because there will be more work involved in following many various state labeling laws, it will be much more expensive for the food industry to comply to state laws rather than federal laws. It is time for the FDA to implement federal labeling standards to protect the food industry from having to comply with complexities, and possibly conflicts, in accommodating a variety of state GMO labeling laws, thereby minimizing labeling costs that are ultimately passed on to

consumers.
It is important that the FDA implement federal GMO labeling standards because in some ways it’s better for GMO supporters too. Ball reports, “Monsanto blames itself for some of the antagonism to GMOs” due to a lack of engagement and transparency. Since a lack of engagement and transparency is part of the problem, then it follows that a lack of labels could be part of the problem. It makes sense for GMO supporters to look forward to better acceptance of their products through consistent labeling and consumer education. And in the article “Agriculture Has To Redefine The Conversation About GMOs", by Elton Robinson, in an interview with David R. Just, co-director, Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs, Robinson tells us that the stigma on GMOs is growing in the United States as it did in Europe and that if the agriculture industry would communicate better with consumers, that trend could be reversed. Here is the best suggestion for improving the GMO situation in the long run. Educating consumers about the benefits of GMOs will make them more acceptable. Labeling GMOs will let people know to what extent they are already benefiting from them. Labeling GMOs will give people a chance to accept them on their own terms. It is time for the FDA to let people of the United States know where the GMOs are in their food so that they can come to understand and accept them and to promote a more positive conversation about GMOs.
The opposition’s primary objection to labeling is that it would be confusing to consumers. In a disparate article “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea”, published in Scientific American, their position is that, “Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health.” This position is not necessarily correct because it is contrary to data that shows that people are more likely to accept GMOs if they know more about them (Byrne, Pendell, and Graff). Sometime in the past the food industry seems to have determined that it was somehow better, and therefore became commonplace in the United States, to hide GMOs rather than discuss and accept them. That thinking has backfired and is no longer valid (Robinson). It is time for the food industry to put an effort into educating people, and stop hiding GMOs.
GMO labeling is important for many reasons and the most cost effective and efficient way to implement standardized labeling is for the FDA to move forward, develop, and publish federal GMO labeling standards. It is also important to educate people about the risks, benefits, and technology behind GMOs. In June of 2012, the American Medical Association (AMA) made policy urging “government, industry, consumer advocacy groups, and the scientific and medical communities to educate the public and improve the availability of unbiased information … on bioengineered food” (Dahl). Our world is changing. GMOs are not going away. Their use will most likely increase in the years to come. We need to be wise when making decisions about the food we eat, how we care for our environment, how we deal with increasing population, and climate change. The sooner we all get on board with GMO labeling, the sooner we will grow to understand them and be able to make informed choices concerning best practices for our future.