Editor’s note: This commentary is by Elizabeth Llorens, who is an undergraduate at the University of Vermont. This piece comes from a research project for her Economics of Sustainability course.
Vermont’s recent legislation mandating the labeling of GMOs is part of a larger controversy surrounding GMOs that has been going on for close to 20 years. In a February cover story in National Geographic entitled “The War on Science,” Joel Achenback even equates concerns about GMOs to climate change denial. In the fight for and against GMOs, some people believe that they are harmful to human and environmental health, while others argue that those risks are mitigated because they are needed to feed the world’s growing population using fewer resources.
Regardless of personal beliefs, consumer choice is stifled when transgenic produce is not labeled. But will labeling be enough to protect consumers? While it is a step in the right direction, there is significant uncertainty about the ecological and health impacts of agricultural practices using GMOs and the process of genetic modification. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the absence of both unbiased publically available research and proper regulation of the industry.
Consumers, more often than not, are not told the whole story regarding the pesticides and herbicides that are used to cultivate transgenic plant species. This is because most studies analyzing the safety and environmental impact of GMOs have been funded by the very companies which develop and profit from producing transgenic seeds. This entrenched corporate bias is compounded by the fact that current regulatory policy is outdated and corporate leaders in the biotechnology field have been able to prevent independent research by relying on their patents to dictate what information gets published. The reality is that there are mixed opinions throughout the scientific community on this issue and thorough and unbiased research is needed and is necessary to accurately evaluate both the ecological and health risks of GMOs.
Strict labeling requirements have been standard for over 10 years in the EU, demonstrating how far behind we are in the United States.
Current biotechnology policy and regulation in the United States is based on a framework that was implemented in 1986 and relies on legislation enacted decades ago, before transgenic organisms were scientifically feasible; the premise being that genetic modification is inherently safe. As a result, the agencies that govern GMOs, which include the USDA, FDA and EPA, permit corporations to sell genetically modified products with minimal oversight.
The European Union (EU), on the other hand, has taken a more precautionary approach, prioritizing risk assessment and consumer safety over corporate profits. On April 22, the EU introduced legislation which continues its policy of heavy regulation of importation of genetically modified products into its member nations. According to the European Commission, this policy imposes pre-market authorization for any GMO to be placed on the market and post-market environmental monitoring for any authorized GMO. Therefore, both before and after a GMO goes to market, a thorough risk assessment of human and environmental factors is required. Assessments are facilitated by the European Food Safety Authority, and allow ample opportunities for public input in the approval of genetically modified crops. Strict labeling requirements have been standard for over 10 years in the EU, demonstrating how far behind we are in the United States.
In order to safely utilize genetic modification, the United States must enact regulations and enforce policies that protect consumers and require unbiased research. It is not appropriate to regulate this industry with policies that predate the very existence of GMOs.
Certainly GMOs could be beneficial to help solve the world’s difficult issues of hunger and poverty, but the minimal regulation of the industry in the United States means that the impact of the use of GMOs may end up being more costly than anticipated, with the unknown ecological and health costs borne not by biotechnology corporations but by society as a whole. Indeed, there is existing research which suggests that biotechnology based agriculture has had destructive effects on soil ecology, biodiversity and has increased health risks. For example, on March 25, the World Health Organization declared that glyphosate, a chemical used in the herbicide that some genetically modified crops are bred to tolerate, is likely carcinogenic. Increased health risks equal increased health costs.
While labeling is a major step toward consumer protection, the United States must have policies and enact legislation that requires objective and in-depth risk assessments to truly prioritize public health and public safety over corporate bias and profits.
