Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[yog_sothoth]

I have seen an odd trend of otherwise sensible skeptics strongly advocating that GMO foods should not be labeled. I find this really bizarre.

I do have to state that I am not against GMOs and that I am not advocating health claims made by "organic" foods. I just think that one should not deal with a public relations issue by hiding information from consumers.

I spend a lot of time in Europe, where GMOs are labeled and have been labeled since 1997. The food in European grocery stores is of significantly higher quality and is cheaper than in the US. When I hear people scream about how labeling is impossible and how it would make food much more expensive, I know that these assertions are simply false. Labeling does not eliminate GMOs either, as Europe grows and uses plenty of GMOs.

I am all for skeptics busting bogus claims by organic growers and I am all for debunking unfounded claims about exaggerated claims about the dangers of GMOs. I think that Skeptics cross the line from debunking claims to endorsing a commercial product when they begin advocating hiding information from the public "for their own good" when other nations can and do label GMOs without apparent harm to the farmers or the public.

The non-labeling of GMOs appears to be a money saving step for some companies, but does not to the US public any real good. I can see why companies don't want to spend the time and money required to do the labeling, but Skeptics should not be carrying their water.

I think this boils down to tribalism. We see people making outlandish claims about GMOs, and we side with the people they are bashing. That is not a good reason for the skeptical community to support an industry position on a commercial product, in my opinion.

 

[marplots]

I agree. I would also like to see foods which have been fertilized with pig poo properly announcing that fact. I have the right to select my food by species of feces.

How am I to make an informed choice about what I put in my holy mouth (on its travels to my revered stomach and honored gut), without knowing the facts? I just want the truth.

 

[Resume]

I just want the truth.

Col. Jessup would like a word.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I agree. I would also like to see foods which have been fertilized with pig poo properly announcing that fact. I have the right to select my food by species of feces.

How am I to make an informed choice about what I put in my holy mouth (on its travels to my revered stomach and honored gut), without knowing the facts? I just want the truth.

Do you have a serious answer? Keep in mind that the EU requires labeling and it works just fine.

 

[marplots]

Do you have a serious answer? Keep in mind that the EU requires labeling and it works just fine.

Behind the humor was the serious point.

But, if bland is required to have the discussion, I can do bland.

With that in mind, I'd like to know what you mean by, "works just fine?" For example, what is meant to be accomplished by the labeling, does it meet this objective in the EU, and is that goal worthwhile?

The last bit is critical. Without it, we are right back to the pig poo jest - driven entirely by my irrational fear and disgust for porcine excrement.

 

[yog_sothoth]

They are managing public concerns about the use of GMOs. Labeling and education are a superior tool, in my opinion, than hiding a product by not labeling it. As for the pig excrement, if the public makes this an issue it could wind up on a label. If people want it on a label, why would you want to keep it off of a label? Because you "know better?"

Public knowledge and the ability to make informed choices are worthy goals. Sweeping a PR problem under a rug by censoring information is not in the public interest. We have seen that labeling GMOs is not harmful and allows the public to know what they are buying. If it doesn't hurt and does provide information, why oppose it?

 

[Belz...]

I have seen an odd trend of otherwise sensible skeptics strongly advocating that GMO foods should not be labeled. I find this really bizarre.

I don't. Everone has blind spots.

 

[marplots]

They are managing public concerns about the use of GMOs. Labeling and education are a superior tool, in my opinion, than hiding a product by not labeling it. As for the pig excrement, if the public makes this an issue it could wind up on a label. If people want it on a label, why would you want to keep it off of a label? Because you "know better?"

Public knowledge and the ability to make informed choices are worthy goals. Sweeping a PR problem under a rug by censoring information is not in the public interest. We have seen that labeling GMOs is not harmful and allows the public to know what they are buying. If it doesn't hurt and does provide information, why oppose it?

Putting "GMO" on a label is not giving the public the ability to make an informed choice. To make an informed choice, they would have to be schooled in the issues, understand the science, and know the details about each product individually. The labeling would misinform more than inform, because the lay public is much more likely to think there's some reason for labeling the product- when there isn't any good reason.

Why oppose it?
Unintended consequences. I think it does "hurt" and doesn't help at all. And yes, at least in the US, we demand our regulators use some expertise and commonsense to prevent populist nonsense.

Here are a couple of sources for my claim that it causes harm - economic harm:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/?page=1
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html

There is a perfectly reasonable alternative: Allow manufacturers to put "GMO Free" on their packages. Instead of requiring a GMO label, simply leave it up to the producers to decide if there's enough demand and profit to be had by avoiding GMOs. This is similar to how "organic" is handled.

Labeling that increases food costs, while serving no other purpose than pandering to ignorant fears, is a bad idea. I have to pay more for my food because someone else is afraid of their food. Furthermore, it tends to blunt the impact of better products, innovation, and scientific progress.

An article in Slate explains some of the expected costs in the US:

Understanding the economic threat of segregation requires understanding the ubiquity of GMOs in our food supply. Eighty-five percent of U.S. corn, 95 percent of U.S. sugar beets and canola, and 91 percent of U.S. soy are genetically modified. Up to 75 percent of the processed foods on the market contain genetically modified ingredients. A GMO label—again, assuming at least some change in consumer choice—means that food producers would have to cleave the food system’s supply chain to segregate and audit GMO and non-GMO ingredients. This would require them to prevent cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO crops, store GMO and non-GMO ingredients in different locations, establish exclusive cleaning and transportation systems for both commodities, and hire contractors to audit storage facilities, processing plants, and final food products. Surveying the potential compliance expenses based on a failed 2002 Oregon labeling initiative (Prop. 27), the Washington State report estimated that annual costs today would range from $150 million to $920 million. The administrative expenses of auditing alone could reach $1 million. And as for the legal expenses that would arise from suits over contamination: Let’s just say the vultures are already circling.

(Full text: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._vermont_maine_connecticut_increase_food.html)

 

[cosmicaug]

I have seen an odd trend of otherwise sensible skeptics strongly advocating that GMO foods should not be labeled. I find this really bizarre.

I've rarely see anyone advocating this. In fact, we already have labeling of non-GMO containing foods and no one objects.

The non-labeling of GMOs appears to be a money saving step for some companies, but does not to the US public any real good. I can see why companies don't want to spend the time and money required to do the labeling, but Skeptics should not be carrying their water.

Oh, you are not talking at all about being against voluntary labeling. You are talking about being against government mandated and enforced labeling. I might be for that the moment we have mandatory labeling of varieties and mandatory labeling for Kosher and Halal.

 

[yog_sothoth]

As I said, Europe has GMO labels and cheaper higher-quality food. Linking to opinion pieces is not exactly convincing.

Oh, and if you go to Europe and tell them that US regulators are better than European regulators, they will politely smile and stop taking you seriously.

 

[cosmicaug]

And I am being serious. If there is some rational purpose to mandatory labeling, it should tell us something about what is in our food. The variety of some crop and the growing conditions of that crop are going to have a greater effect on composition than whether something is genetically engineered or not (at least for current modifications). As such, if it's all about knowing what I am eating, variety information is more important.

 

[cosmicaug]

Oh, and if you go to Europe and tell them that US regulators are better than European regulators, they will politely smile and stop taking you seriously.

I'm sure that goes both ways.

 

[cosmicaug]

As I said, Europe has GMO labels and cheaper higher-quality food. Linking to opinion pieces is not exactly convincing.

In Europe what you also have is no GMOs on store shelves. I can see how producers in the US would see that model as a threat to their business. Of course, Europe also imports massive quantities of GE crops as animal feed.

 

[marplots]

As I said, Europe has GMO labels and cheaper higher-quality food. Linking to opinion pieces is not exactly convincing.

Oh, and if you go to Europe and tell them that US regulators are better than European regulators, they will politely smile and stop taking you seriously.

Cite?
But don't bother if "higher-quality" means the same as "non-GMO."

 

[cosmicaug]

I am all for skeptics busting bogus claims by organic growers and I am all for debunking unfounded claims about exaggerated claims about the dangers of GMOs. I think that Skeptics cross the line from debunking claims to endorsing a commercial product when they begin advocating hiding information from the public "for their own good" when other nations can and do label GMOs without apparent harm to the farmers or the public.

Part of the problem is that we know what the purpose of mandatory labeling is. The purpose of mandatory labeling is scaremongering. It is nothing else. At least presently, it provides no useful information.

As an example, Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., the makers of the recently approved Arctic Apple (I think it's Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, for now --but I am going from memory on that), are against mandatory labeling. Yet, they claim that "Arctic Apple" will be in the labels and I am sure it will be promoted as a non-browning apple. Certainly, it is known (and anyone can look it up) that the non-browning trait has been introduced through genetic engineering so if the motivation for Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. was to hide information from the public they are doing a pretty crappy job of it.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Cite?
But don't bother if "higher-quality" means the same as "non-GMO."

No, I mean higher quality. I get annoyed at the state of things in the US every time I go to Europe. This has a lot to do with the centralized systems designed to prioritize consistency over quality used by the Giants and Safeways around the US vs the smaller decentralized European model.

I find it odd that the food prices here are higher, but the prices are decided by the market and competition, not how much it costs to bake bread fresh in the bakery as opposed to heating a frozen loaf that was made in a factory in Kansas.

This has nothing to do with GMOs, of course, but food in the US is cruddy compared to Europe.

 

[cosmicaug]

Putting "GMO" on a label is not giving the public the ability to make an informed choice. To make an informed choice, they would have to be schooled in the issues, understand the science, and know the details about each product individually. The labeling would misinform more than inform, because the lay public is much more likely to think there's some reason for labeling the product- when there isn't any good reason.

Just to clarify, when I talk of mandatory labeling of varieties (which I think would be absurd, by the way) my claim is that such a labeling would give one more information about composition than a GMO vs. non-GMO label. My claim is not that it would provide the consumer with the ability to make a more informed choice. It would not be a more informed choice because knowing that there are small compositional differences between a Russet Nugget and a Russet Burbank potato still doesn't tell me what is in each of the varieties.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Part of the problem is that we know what the purpose of mandatory labeling is. The purpose of mandatory labeling is scaremongering. It is nothing else. At least presently, it provides no useful information.

I disagree with your assertions and conspiracy theories.

 

[poblob14]

I spend a lot of time in Europe, where GMOs are labeled and have been labeled since 1997.

Can you tell us exactly what the label says, and what the standard is for use of the label?

 

[marplots]

Just to clarify, when I talk of mandatory labeling of varieties (which I think would be absurd, by the way) my claim is that such a labeling would give one more information about composition than a GMO vs. non-GMO label. My claim is not that it would provide the consumer with the ability to make a more informed choice. It would not be a more informed choice because knowing that there are small compositional differences between a Russet Nugget and a Russet Burbank potato still doesn't tell me what is in each of the varieties.

The matter of "giving them a choice" is also a dodge. Consider this:

Mandatory labeling provides food processors and retailers a choice, but it does not facilitate consumer choice. Because of rational food processor decisions, mandatory labeling acts as a market barrier, and GM products do not appear at the retail level. The mandatory labeling schemes in place today may be compared to a voting system with majority representation, where the winner takes all. Some consumers would probably buy GM products if they had the choice, but the mandatory labeling system does not give them any choice.

In contrast, voluntary labeling provides consumer choice as long as the maximum willingness to pay for non-GM products exceeds the corresponding price premium. This is why most economists argue that voluntary labeling is more efficient—it allows consumers to choose product quality. Voluntary labeling is like a voting system with proportional representation, where a share of the market may buy non-GM food, and the rest will buy mixed conventional and GM food.

(from: http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a13-carter.htm)