A common sense look at GMOs, Prop 37, and personal responsibility

If you live in California…or even if you don’t… you've probably heard about Prop 37, a state initiative Californians are gearing up to vote on in November that will, for the first time in this country, address the issue of labeling GMO-containing food products. And, of course, GMO (for you cave-dwellers) means genetically modified organism.

There's a huge fight in progress on the issue, for obvious reasons-- there's simply no more room on food labels. And besides, Monsanto, the biggest genetic modifier in the business, is against it, along with every other major food and chemical manufacturer in this country... and they're spending lots and lots of money to convince everyone it's a bad idea. Granted, food manufacturers already have to disclose every molecule in their product, and then spell it out in actual English words. (Example from a milk carton: "Contains milk.") But this idea of disclosing whether or not a product contains a manipulated step-sister of an actual food...uh, we don't need to know about that...nope, not a problem...it's exactly the same...just buy it and don't think about it too much.

May I draw your attention to the rink. 

In this corner, we have the Supporters--the Pro-Prop 37 folks. Main argument:  Consumers have a right to know what's in their food. Label it already!

In this corner, we have the Opposition--the Anti-Prop 37 people. Main arguments:  (1) Labeling is expensive - it will increase the cost of food; (2) The Proposition is poorly worded and there are too many special interest exemptions; and (3) Law suits will abound - everybody will be suing manufacturers and grocery stores.  It will be a nightmare.

Now for some common sense.

No doubt all of this will occur if the proposition passes. Americans over the past 50 years or so have morphed into the most litigious society that ever lived. It's our way. We've become a nation of victims. The "lawsuit" argument falls on its face because Americans will always find something to file lawsuits about.

Now for the "special interest exemption" argument-- right off the bat, it’s exempting “certified organic” foods.  Not sure what that’s about, unless a label of “certified organic” already requires no GMO ingredients. According to BallotPedia.org, the bill

"Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

Frankly, I agree with the "poorly worded" argument. Just the exemptions above have guaranteed that GMO ingredients will continue to be hidden in food even after expensive labeling takes effect. (I can hear it already..."It's not my fault - I didn't know there were GMO byproducts among the seventy-two ingredients.") The devil is in the details, as usual. 

Lawmakers these days seem incapable of writing simple, easy to interpret laws, probably due to the fact that if ordinary people could understand them, we wouldn't need lawyers. How hard is it to write a common sense regulation? “Foods with genetically modified ingredients must be labeled as such.” There, problem solved in 10 words.  

Let's tackle the "cost" argument. Yes, the new rules that result from passage of this initiative will raise the cost of food, but the question should be, “will the benefits of labeling outweigh the cost of labeling?” The answer to that question depends on whether or not you believe that eating food that has been genetically modified is dangerous to your health.

So let's look at that. What exactly are Monsanto and others doing to the plants that has so many worried? Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, explained the problem in a Huffington Post online article dated October 15. The "ag biotech" industry has genetically engineered two traits into GMO plants. One makes it herbicide tolerant, allowing the plant to survive massive doses of chemical herbicides. Those herbicides are then absorbed into the plant and eventually end up on your plate. The other genetic modification actually turns the plant itself into an insecticide with genetically engineered poison in every cell of the plant. When the bug eats the plant, it dies. (A little helping of insecticide, anyone?) And as usually happens when scientists attempt to play God, there are unintended consequences...things like super weeds and super bugs that become resistant to the engineered plant-- leaving us with all of the poison and none of the benefits. So what do they do? Repent and put things back the way God made them? Not on your life. Instead, they come up with an even more toxic solution.

The newest effort is a cryptically named variety called 2,4-D corn. This, from an April article, again in the Huffington Post, by Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety describes this new product:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently deciding whether or not to approve an application by Dow Chemical for its controversial genetically engineered (GE) corn variety that is resistant to the hazardous herbicide 2,4-D. 2,4-D and the still more toxic 2,4,5-T formed Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War."

Are we beginning to understand why the big agricultural and chemical companies are opposing Prop 37? (Check out this list of donors.) We may as well be asking them to put a skull and crossbones on the label.

Prop 37 represents the first major bump in the road for the GMO industry, and they're doing everything they can to defeat it. The opposition trumpets that there’s “no proven health risk” to GMO food, but in all fairness, their buddies at the FDA signed off on genetic modification without ever requiring long-term testing for health risk. This is another fine example of who the FDA serves, and it isn't you or me. In what universe should anyone assume that a plant that has been saturated with a chemical herbicide or turned into an insecticide is somehow safe for people to consume? These are toxins designed to kill living things. And yet the FDA has assumed exactly that. From a FoodProductionDaily.com 2006 article, “The FDA has not found, and does not believe, that new plant varieties under development for food and feed use generally pose any safety or regulatory concerns.”

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the first long-term study using GMO corn by an independent (non-industry) research group has produced some troubling results. In a recent French study that fed Monsanto corn to rats over two years, a significant majority of the animals developed cancerous tumors and organ damage on fairly small amounts of it.

One of the biggest complaints we hear about the free market is that big business is evil and gets away with murder...and sometimes that's true (read about the Fluoride Deception). But when industrial sins are at their worst is when they are protected by government. Since the 20th century, it's become an even greater problem because most research is funded by either industry or government. In such an environment, deception thrives. Add to this an unfounded trust in government and research, and you get GMO food on your table and fluoride (one of the most poisonous substances in nature) in your drinking water.

So how do regular people fight against Industry and Government that are devoid of moral bearings? With initiatives, however imperfect, like Prop 37.

Common sense tells us that if genetically engineered products are good and safe, their inventors shouldn't be afraid to slap the little GMO seal on the front of the food label with pride. At the very least, genetic modification ought to join that growing group of allergens that must be disclosed on every processed food. I don't know about you, but I happen to be allergic to poison.

The bill isn't a cure-all for sure. A GMO labeling law would solve many of the difficulties we now face trying to source out the healthiest foods, but such laws can only do so much. They can't solve the problem of fraud. There will always be companies that disregard the laws of the land and market products with false information—“honey” made of corn syrup, “extra virgin olive oil” spiked with soy or corn oil, and “organic” products made from genetically modified soy bean components.

But a law requiring companies to disclose when they have fundamentally transformed a natural organism will at least give us all the opportunity to make a choice about what we will eat. We can't make intelligent choices without information.

As ever, it's up to us to read labels.  But even then, don’t expect “natural” from manufactured foods… even the ones you get from your local “health food” store. If you want pure food, the only way to be sure you're getting it is to buy from a farmer you know or grow it yourself. If a product has a label, it is processed to some degree and there is a chance it will have an ingredient in it that is less than desirable  Grocery markets are businesses, not your mother. They exist to act as a middle-man moving goods from the original manufacturer to the consumer while making a profit in the process. There are many markets who claim to provide all-natural food, such as Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. But even they will stock foods based on their definition of what's natural and healthy -- not yours.  Every trip to the market should be an exercise in caution. Ultimately we are responsible for the choices we make.

For MY money, labeling is worth the cost. The world will go on, and Monsanto is not likely to go out of business over it. There will be a ridiculous number of people that will continue to "drink the kool-aid" even when it's labeled ... I mean, really, have you seen the ingredients in Kool-aid?! People are still consuming soft drinks laden with high fructose corn syrup in spite of the fact that this ingredient, linked to obesity and diabetes among other ailments, is clearly listed on the container. People still eat cookies and margarine full of transfats, a substance linked to heart disease, even though the package is clearly labeled. And people will knowingly consume genetically modified foods because long-term effects are akin to mythology. The manufacturers and their marketing masters will continue to convince the majority that 2,4-D corn is just another "variety" for a long time to come.

But those of us who care about what we eat will have a better chance of avoiding the scary stuff.

Labeling is just plain honest behavior. Is that too much to ask? We shouldn't need a law to make it happen. But if you live in California, do us all a favor and vote YES on Prop 37. Maybe the rest of our States will wise up and follow your example.