Describe the irony of the gmo-free label.

Q: Why GMO labeling is important?

Its time to label GMOs Mandatory labeling is good for consumers because it will help them be fully informed and less confused when they consider buying GMO products.

Q: What are some arguments against labeling GM foods?

5 Reasons We Dont Need Federally Mandated GMO Labeling.

|May 10, 2012

Índice Show

What does the non
What is GMO food Labelling?
Why GMO labeling is important?
What are some arguments against labeling GM foods?

I Recently received two email messages on the same day that made for a bizarre coincidence. The first came from a group that is trying to get the state of California, where I live, to label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, commonly known as GMOs.

I think this is a bad idea on a number of levels. First off, just from a regulatory perspective, I don’t think states should get involved in what should really be a federal issue, if it were taken up at all — and I hope this isn’t. Can you imagine the added cost to the average family’s food budget? Because if you think foods containing GMOs are in any way unusual, think again.

You’ve almost certainly consumed some GMOs this week, in fact. By far the lion’s share of soybeans and corn grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and it’s difficult to find a prepared food that does not contain these ingredients in some fashion. Think of the cost of labeling all those products that are going to be sold in California. Now think about the many single moms in the state already struggling to put food on the table for their young children, and how they will feel about the added cost to their already meager food budget.

Embrace Seed Technology

The second email, which came from a friend, was a news story on a speech made by Microsoft founder Bill Gates on a topic of interest to me: How can we find high-tech ag solutions to feed the 9 billion people expected to inhabit the Earth in 2050? Gates is apparently weary of criticism that the high-tech solutions he advocates are too expensive or bad for the environment. His response is that countries can either embrace modern seed technology or GMOs or their citizens will starve. Right on, Gates.

Incidentally, Gates sends out an annual letter from he and his wife Melinda’s foundation to update people on what they’re doing. I don’t have time to go into the 2012 version here, but if you care about the future of the world, and agriculture, you’ll find it of interest. It doesn’t hurt that he salutes my all-time personal hero, Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, whose improved wheat varieties saved countless lives back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Anyway, in the news story, Gates told The Associated Press that he finds it ironic that most people who oppose genetic engineering in plant breeding live in rich nations that he believes are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.

I double-checked where that first email came from, and sure enough, the anti-GMO group is based just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco in Marin County, one of the richest counties, in one of the richest states, in one of the richest nations, on Earth. Gates nailed it all right.

3 3 5 Opinion: The Irony Of GMO Opposition

Bussan is an associate professor in the Department of Horticulture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

See all author stories here.

After decades of being sold “non-fat,” “zero cholesterol” or more recently “gluten-free,” this looks like just one more marketing claim. In fact, the non-GMO label is fundamentally different because it is based on an entirely false assumption.

The truth is, virtually all the foods we eat have been “genetically modified,” and often in dramatic ways. The widespread belief that our food still resembles what our ancestors domesticated out of “nature” is only a demonstration of how little we understand history and science. However, the Princess Bride meme above is pertinent, because this new appeal to our ignorance is definitely coming from “someone who is selling something.”

Recently, I saw an ad in a trade magazine that compelled me to go tilt with the windmill that is “non-GMO” labeling. The ad was promoting the potential “Texas-Sized Sales” of bags of Sweet Scarlett’s grapefruits. I love those grapefruits. They are tasty and sweet, a beautiful red color, and seedless. I’m happy that my favorite stores carry this excellent product. But at the bottom of this particular ad, I noticed the logo declaring that these are “Non-GMO Project Verified.” That crossed a line for me.

These delicious grapefruit varieties are a textbook example of how crops were genetically modified back in the 1960s and '70s using a method called “mutagenesis breeding.” Basically, seeds (or in this case pieces of budwood) were exposed to gamma radiation in substantial doses, and then sifted through to find ones with mutations to their DNA that had desirable qualities. You don’t get much more “genetically modified” than that! That positive plant breeding story could certainly be made to sound scary in terms of unintended consequences, but in fact, thousands of modern plant varieties were modified this way. To date there is no track record of bad effects on consumers. There are now far more precise and controlled ways to genetically modify crops, but only certain new methods have been singled out for opposition as “GMOs,” while clumsy old methods, like mutagenesis breeding, escape this demonization.

So my problem with calling these grapefruits “non-GMO” is simple. These fruits are absolutely “genetically modified." To call this product non-GMO is a lie. That is true for most other non-GMO labels. These are also lies that dovetail with another long-term lie that has been widely disseminated in the Internet age - a “lie with pictures.” I'm talking about the widely used, stock-photo images illustrate of ready to eat fruits and vegetables stuck full of large hypodermic needles that are used in campaigns against “GMO food” Those images bear absolutely no resemblance to how plants are genetically engineered, but they are a powerful lie that has been quite effectively used to manipulate consumers.

What is truly disappointing is that the non-GMO “labeling lie,” and its inevitable connection to the photo-lie, is officially sanctioned by the very federal agency charged with truth in labeling for foods. In its guidance document on the subject, the FDA says that while it “prefers” more accurate wording on labels, it “will not pursue enforcement actions” with regard to the use of the “non-GMO” terminology. Thanks for protecting us from inaccurate labeling, FDA.

There is another reason that this particular kind of disinformation is a problem. The grapefruit farmers in Texas are facing a threat that is common to all citrus growers. Already, an exotic bacterial disease spread by a newly introduced insect (Asian Citrus Psyllid) has destroyed half of the oranges in Florida. The pathogen and vector have already made it to many other states, including Texas and California, and even with intensive efforts to contain the threat, it is probably only a matter of time before other citrus crops go into decline. For me, this intensifies the absurdity of marketing a very much “genetically modified” crop as non-GMO, because one of the best hopes for saving citrus crops is through modern genetic engineering – the kind where you actually know what you are doing to the genes. How will the marketers then back-track on their implicit message that “GMO” is a bad thing? Most likely the bacteria will win and the farmers and consumers will lose.

I have spent a vast amount of my own time over the last seven years writing blogs and articles defending modern agriculture against disinformation. I have great respect for the farmers who produce our food and for companies like Wonderful Citrus who clean, pack and ship that food to consumers. Thus, I’m uncomfortable calling out this and other food/produce companies who have jumped on the non-GMO labeling train. Even so, I feel compelled to do that, not just in the case of this “Texas Sized” lie, but also across the board. I challenge the food industry to reject this kind of marketing even if it is FDA sanctioned and highly appealing to your marketing folks. I’ll leave you with another thought that has been well articulated by “the Dread Pirate Roberts.”

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at . I have tried to contact the marketing company for these grapefruits and have gotten no response. I have contacted the non-GMO certification group, but they have yet to put me in contact with anyone willing to discuss the science related to their certification of this or other crops. I don't know who to talk to at the FDA about this. If you know a good contact there, please let me know.

What does the non

Non-GMO means a product was produced without genetic engineering and its ingredients are not derived from GMOs. Non-GMO Project Verified additionally means that a product is compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard, which includes stringent provisions for testing, traceability, and segregation.

What is GMO food Labelling?

GM Labelling Labelling provides information for consumers and allows them to make an informed choice. In the case of pre-packaged GM food/feed products, the list of ingredients must indicate "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [name of the organism]".

Why GMO labeling is important?

It's time to label GMOs Mandatory labeling is good for consumers because it will help them be fully informed and less confused when they consider buying GMO products.