Consumer Reports published an article in the March magazine covering some FAQs about GMOs. I was somewhat surprised to learn that they support the mandatory labeling of GMO products, that people have the right to know.
While their answers don't demonstrate either safety or harm from eating GMO foods (instead, they show why we don't know), they do make a good case for the labeling of GMO foods, an issue that has come under heavy fire from the industries that produce and use GMOs and prefer the status quo of people not knowing what's in the food they're eating.
Consumer Reports starts in with the question of whether GMOs are bad for one's health:
Those who support using GMOs point out that Americans have been eating foods containing them for more than 15 years and that there’s no credible evidence that people have been harmed. But saying there’s no evidence of harm isn’t the same as saying they’ve been proved safe. “The contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime,” says Robert Gould, M.D., president of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
They go on to point out how other countries have used guidelines developed by the WHO to assess the safety of GMO foods, but that in the U.S., the FDA requires no such thing.
Physicians for Social Responsibility was a group I hadn't heard of before, so it seemed worth investigating further. I found they got their start fighting nuclear proliferation and atmospheric nuclear testing, and nowadays they work in health care reform, gun safety, and sustainable agriculture. They have more to say on GMOs, as well.
There is no consensus that GMO foods are safe for human health or the environment, especially regarding risks due to toxicity and allergenicity.[v]
The FDA doesn't conduct safety testing on GMO crops and doesn’t require independent testing. The only testing done is by the same biotech corporations that develop the crops. Moreover, these corporations severely restrict scientists from conducting independent health or environmental safety research, making it extremely difficult to get unbiased investigation.[vi]
Following the links led to some interesting reading. Is it supposed to be reassuring that the American people are essentially the
guinea pigs of the food industry?
2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
It is often claimed that “trillions of GM meals” have been eaten in the US with no ill effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.
What else was there? Ah. Sure, I guess it would be difficult to do research and establish safety or harm, either way, if the industry actively
suppresses it.
Monsanto has attempted to take cover in a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that gives the agency's agricultural scientists access to the company’s genetically engineered seeds for a wide range of research; Monsanto has also had agreements with some universities.
Several other seed companies are said to be negotiating voluntary deals with universities in the wake of the entomologists' letter to the EPA. And the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), a trade group of which Monsanto is a member, is also developing guidelines to improve access to new seeds.
Not quite as bad as it was a few years ago, but still not bad for industry, eh? Voluntary agreements that are on their terms, with organizations and universities they're comfortable with, agreements that they can back out of, being voluntary.
It's not going to stop me from having some Doritos with my lunch (corn product, not labeled GMO-free, so oh well). I'm not sure I could afford making the switch. Then again...I could stand to lose some weight.
Going back to the Consumer Reports article, they also spend some time addressing the question of environmental damage.
A tenfold increase in the use of Roundup since 1996
The industry was successful in breeding weeds resistant to their new favorite herbicide, Roundup (aka glyphosate). Their awesome solution is to create new GMO products resistant to other herbicides, such as
2,4-D. Now, Consumer Reports didn't mention that this particular herbicide was a component of Agent Orange, probably because that alone is liable to turn some folks off to it, but that's one thing I found about it. Also that the EPA has said the data doesn't support a link between it and cancer. Nevertheless,
Consumer Reports had some concerns.
Significant increases in the use of these herbicides could potentially affect consumers’ health as well, because residue from the chemicals can end up in food crops. In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency raising concerns about increased exposure to 2,4-D that would result from approval of Dow’s new GMO corn and soy, a group of 70 scientists, doctors, and other health professionals pointed out that studies in humans have reported associations between exposure to the herbicide and increased risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, birth defects, and other reproductive problems.
So, to finish on the question of labeling, it's obvious that the industries who produce and use GMO foods are very interested in suppressing mandatory labeling laws. The industry
spent millions narrowly defeating a law in Oregon, and they're busy trying to
sue a new law in Vermont out of existence.
That being said, as Consumer Reports points out, we have laws mandating that your juice is from concentrate, or that your food is homogenized, or irradiated. How is it of vital importance that I know if my orange juice is fresh or from concentrate, but I'm not allowed -- I must not know if my Doritos are made with GMO corn? At this point, it's not even a question for me, really. I imagine they probably are. The industry wants to hide it so bad, I figure they must be doing it. What have they won?
According to them? Money, of course. Not just for them, but for us. Supposedly mandatory labeling will drive up food prices catastrophically. I did mention that diet, but seriously! That's what will happen, though, when the industry chooses to research something they consider a problem. Not surprisingly, their research 'proved' it. But then, of course it would.
Opponents of labeling cite industry-financed studies suggesting that food prices would soar, boosting a typical family of four’s spending at the supermarket by $400 to $800 per year. But the Consumers Union analysis found that the median cost that might be passed on to consumers was just $2.30 per person annually—or $9.20 for a family of four.
Consumer Reports explains the industry presumptions that people won't want to buy their products -- as if many of us really have that much of a choice. I know I'm not so rich that I can afford to go all GMO-free, organic out the wazoo. I look at it in the stores, but when the organic chicken costs 2 or 3 times as much? I know what I'm stuck with.
The industry is also in the position of denying the rest of the world exists, in that plenty of other countries do have mandatory labeling laws, and they haven't seen the kind of price increases the industry claims would happen here. Perhaps they would suggest the American people are especially boneheaded about such things, and maybe they have a point there.
But I'm skeptical. And I guess that, if the industry is all too pleased to use me as n experimental research subject (“trillions of GM meals” with no ill effect!), seems only fair to return the favor.
4:50 PM PT: http://scienceblogs.com/...
mconvente points out in a comment below that one of my sources, the ENSSER link, has a citation to a debunked study in regards to effects of GMO foods in animal studies. I think it undermines the Consumer Reports claim about animal study results to some degree, if not entirely. Take it at least with a nice grain of salt.