Art by Amber Sliter, The Spectrum

The G.M.O. you didnt

know
Consumer empowerment should be
central in G.M.O. labeling debate
By
Published: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Updated: Sunday, February 23, 2014 20:02
The cornerstone of our capitalist market, for better or worse, is consumer choice. And choice is meaningless
if consumers are not able to make informed decisions.
The debate over genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.s) used in our foods has been long and controversial with those decrying frankenfood
railing against those portraying the process as the savior from food shortages and high food prices.
The battle over labeling these foods has been gaining significant traction in recent weeks, with states like Colorado putting labeling initiatives on
their ballots for the upcoming elections.
The process of genetically modifying food involves introducing new genes into foods for perceived benefits, such as drought-resistance, improved
nutritional value and the ability to withstand herbicides.
While these are doubtlessly beneficial for consumers pocketbooks and farmers finances, there has been long-standing opposition to G.M.O.s and
questions regarding its impact on health.
The science has remained generally inconclusive, leading to claims that research doesnt demonstrate the safety of G.M.O.s.
But a recent effort by Italian researchers who cataloged 1,783 studies of G.M.O. safety revealed there is no credible evidence that G.M.O.s pose
any unique threat to the environment or the publics health, according to an article by Forbes.
Credible threat or not, given that genetic modification is a contentious issue, labeling should be required to respect the desires of those who wish to
know what they are purchasing.
Currently, no federal requirement exists to label foods with G.M.O.s in them.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims because there is no significant difference between bioengineered foods and natural food,
labeling is not necessary.
Whether genetically modified food poses an imminent threat to the consumers health, the process surely constitutes a significant change to the
food in question.
Beyond these considerations, however, the role of consumer choice is central to why G.M.O. foods should be labeled.
Claims against labeling often cite the sense of false danger that would arise if foods were labeled. The thinking goes that consumers, falling back
on preconceived anxieties regarding G.M.O.s, will not purchase foods labeled as such.
Surely the role of misinformation and lack of understanding exists in regards to food production generally, and genetically modified foods
particularly. This should not, however, impede efforts to provide information on whether G.M.O.s are in a product.
Though we should all take greater time to understand our food and its ingredients, this begins with first having access to information regarding what
is in the food we eat.
Regulation requiring labeling of genetically modified foods would empower consumers to make more informed decisions about the food they
purchase, allowing for competition in the market that reveals actual consumer preferences.
Furthermore, labeling would encourage greater consumer understanding of G.M.O.s in general, pushing the concept into public conversation on a
broader scale.
Knowledge of what we consume is, fundamentally, a right that has gone largely overlooked in past decades. Whether the constituent parts of the
food we eat are deemed healthy by federal regulators does not and should not determine if we know what goes into the food we eat.
Labeling of the presence of G.M.O.s is a right for citizens and consumers.
The essence of our economic system lies in informed consumer choice. But first we have to know what were choosing.

email: editorial@ubspectrum.com