Labeling
GMO’s
Almost everything you pick up in a grocery store has those ever honest words on the side “Nutrition Facts”. Beneath that, begins a list of everything you want to know about that product. Everything from calories to vitamins and fiber to protein. Then below that is the good stuff, this is that list of exactly what’s in this box, ingredients. What if I told you that’s not the whole story? This list may be complete, but there is some information many people have been fighting for, for over a decade to get included on this label. The presence of GMO’s. A GMO is a genetically modified organism. This means that somewhere during the plants life it was genetically engineered somehow. Not quite all natural huh?
The history of this infamous label we call Nutrition Facts really isn’t that old at all. According to the FDA 1990 is the year the Nutritional labeling and Education Act passed requiring all food products to have a standard nutrition label. This is also when the FDA standardized many words that were common on labels until then. Not having a standardized definition of some common words meant “light” on two similar products could have very different nutritional information. From its inception in 1990, the Nutrition Facts label hadn’t change much at all until 2003, and this change was very small. The FDA now made it mandatory that all labels included Trans Fat content. This was a huge step in helping the public make a smarter, healthier choices in food.
Our current labels don’t look very different from their appearance in the early ‘90’s. The content on these labels does have some very strict guidelines to follow. According to Guidance for Industry: A Food Labelling Guild by the FDA there are size requirements, content requirements, and several variations to each of these stipulations. The content in every label is pretty standard, every label will have serving size, calories, at least 3 nutrients (fat, cholesterol, and sodium), carbohydrates, protein, and several vitamins. The number and types of vitamins can vary depending on the product. Many food producers include a lot of information voluntarily including the presence of GMO or being GMO free. This is the big debate among states, whether or not to mandate the presence of GMO’s in the product.
There are some major changes coming to the label soon. In conjunction with the First Lady Michelle Obama the FDA is revamping some of the information on this label. They are going to leave the overall design of it, so people don’t get too confused. Their plan is to make it easier to read and less congested with information that is out dated. They are making the calorie count the most prominent part of the label. This tends to be the number one thing people look at anyways, so why not make it the biggest. They are also changing serving size to encompass what is normally being eaten in one sitting. The current serving sizes are very small and not even close to the normal size consumed. This makes for skewed daily percentages on the right side of the label. If a package is typically consumed in one sitting it must have per-serving and per-package totals on the package, according to The FDA report. Not only are they adding information, but their taking some outdated stuff off. Calories from fat and vitamins A and C are not required any more but may be left on voluntarily.
There are many arguments made by the pro-labeling community in the article, Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods, P. Byrne as to why things need to be labeled. The number one argument is the consumer having the right to know what they are eating. This is just common sense, knowing what you’re eating seems like it is your right. Especially when there are health concerns that have been raised on some of the possible effects of certain foods. Labeling foods would alleviate this concern for the public. Being able to steer clear of certain ingredients should be available to everyone.
To pass legislation to require labeling of these GMO products there are many hurdles that need to be jumped over. It’s not just as easy as saying this has GMO’s in it so label it. There are many factors that go into the conditions of labeling. They have to figure out at what percent of GMO has to be labeled. The percent’s of GMO can be anywhere form .1% to over 1%. There is going to have to be a wide range of guidelines for this labeling procedure. On the other side of the labeling of GMO products, people are currently labeling things as GMO free. The FDA suggests not using this terminology because unless its 100% organic odds are it contains some GMO’s. Because of cross pollination form wind and insects it’s almost impossible to have GMO free crops.
One thing the anti-labeling side of things believes is that labeling them will create a false sense of fear throughout the public. There is a large number of people that don’t entirely know what a GMO is and therefore doesn’t know any pros or cons about them. With the extensive testing on almost every crop to establish its levels of GMO’s there’s going to be a cost for these tests. These costs would occur somewhere in the chain of the economy. If the farmer has to pay for these tests then the cost would works its way up to the consumer. They also believe that if people really want to be GMO free, they should do their own research and find out what they can and can’t eat on their own.
There may be another way to look at the labeling of GMO arguments. In the article The Logic and Consequences of Labeling GMO’s, David Ailberman looks at it completely differently. First he looks at the benefits to GE crops. By using GE crops the yield goes up drastically. These crops can be designed to resist certain pests and even pesticides. So if you have a plant that can fight its own battles against nature you will have more product form the same amount of land. There are three huge benefits to this alone. One, more product in the same amount of time picking and planting means greater profits. Two, you won’t need to cut any more forests down for more agricultural fields less greenhouse gasses for the planet. Three, no more pesticides. This means no more pollutants running into our rivers and streams, and cheaper production of said crops. David Ailberman points out that the percentage of pesticides used across the world due to GE crops has dropped drastically. China’s usage alone has dropped 65% in 2002. Environmental reasons are the most reasons for a lot of people but they are not the only reasons in this case. With the large increase in yield per fields the economic benefits can’t be ignored. In soybeans alone, the annual gain in 1999 was $500 mil to $1.1 mil. In 2001 this jumped to $1.25 mil.
With these kinds of benefits to the environment and economy David thinks the question about labeling GMO crops should be turned around. He states that there is still only evidence that shows GE crops are “at least as safe as natural crops.” So why should they turn GMO crops into something that may scare people when most of the public isn’t informed enough about them to make an informed decision. The normal type of crop someday may become the GE crop due to its versatility. So maybe we should label the GMO free crops.
There has been one huge victory in the fight for the labeling of GMO’s. Vermont has passed a bill that requires the labeling of all GMO products in grocery stores according to The Center for Food Safety article, Victory for the Food Movement in Vermont on GMO Food Labeling. The governor also put out a statement saying that he will sign any bill that passes, regarding the labeling of GMO foods. The law states that all products effected by the bill has to be labeled by 2016. There are 34 other states that have introduced similar bills to their governments. Main and Connecticut have passed bills as well, but they have the stipulation that the surrounding states must pass similar bills as well before they go into effect.
Looking at all of the evidence for labeling GMO’s it comes down to consumer ease. It makes it easier for the average consumer to know what they are getting themselves into. As Vermont found out, there is an overwhelming amount of support for the labeling of them. There will be a lot of eyes watching how it unfolds there, and how they will tackle all of the issues. The benefits of these crops are undeniable but does mean they can run around hidden in our food? It looks like public is finding traction in the fight to find out exactly what they are eating. So it comes down to what else you want to see on your food label, “May contain GMO.” Or would you rather not know?
Almost everything you pick up in a grocery store has those ever honest words on the side “Nutrition Facts”. Beneath that, begins a list of everything you want to know about that product. Everything from calories to vitamins and fiber to protein. Then below that is the good stuff, this is that list of exactly what’s in this box, ingredients. What if I told you that’s not the whole story? This list may be complete, but there is some information many people have been fighting for, for over a decade to get included on this label. The presence of GMO’s. A GMO is a genetically modified organism. This means that somewhere during the plants life it was genetically engineered somehow. Not quite all natural huh?
The history of this infamous label we call Nutrition Facts really isn’t that old at all. According to the FDA 1990 is the year the Nutritional labeling and Education Act passed requiring all food products to have a standard nutrition label. This is also when the FDA standardized many words that were common on labels until then. Not having a standardized definition of some common words meant “light” on two similar products could have very different nutritional information. From its inception in 1990, the Nutrition Facts label hadn’t change much at all until 2003, and this change was very small. The FDA now made it mandatory that all labels included Trans Fat content. This was a huge step in helping the public make a smarter, healthier choices in food.
Our current labels don’t look very different from their appearance in the early ‘90’s. The content on these labels does have some very strict guidelines to follow. According to Guidance for Industry: A Food Labelling Guild by the FDA there are size requirements, content requirements, and several variations to each of these stipulations. The content in every label is pretty standard, every label will have serving size, calories, at least 3 nutrients (fat, cholesterol, and sodium), carbohydrates, protein, and several vitamins. The number and types of vitamins can vary depending on the product. Many food producers include a lot of information voluntarily including the presence of GMO or being GMO free. This is the big debate among states, whether or not to mandate the presence of GMO’s in the product.
There are some major changes coming to the label soon. In conjunction with the First Lady Michelle Obama the FDA is revamping some of the information on this label. They are going to leave the overall design of it, so people don’t get too confused. Their plan is to make it easier to read and less congested with information that is out dated. They are making the calorie count the most prominent part of the label. This tends to be the number one thing people look at anyways, so why not make it the biggest. They are also changing serving size to encompass what is normally being eaten in one sitting. The current serving sizes are very small and not even close to the normal size consumed. This makes for skewed daily percentages on the right side of the label. If a package is typically consumed in one sitting it must have per-serving and per-package totals on the package, according to The FDA report. Not only are they adding information, but their taking some outdated stuff off. Calories from fat and vitamins A and C are not required any more but may be left on voluntarily.
There are many arguments made by the pro-labeling community in the article, Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods, P. Byrne as to why things need to be labeled. The number one argument is the consumer having the right to know what they are eating. This is just common sense, knowing what you’re eating seems like it is your right. Especially when there are health concerns that have been raised on some of the possible effects of certain foods. Labeling foods would alleviate this concern for the public. Being able to steer clear of certain ingredients should be available to everyone.
To pass legislation to require labeling of these GMO products there are many hurdles that need to be jumped over. It’s not just as easy as saying this has GMO’s in it so label it. There are many factors that go into the conditions of labeling. They have to figure out at what percent of GMO has to be labeled. The percent’s of GMO can be anywhere form .1% to over 1%. There is going to have to be a wide range of guidelines for this labeling procedure. On the other side of the labeling of GMO products, people are currently labeling things as GMO free. The FDA suggests not using this terminology because unless its 100% organic odds are it contains some GMO’s. Because of cross pollination form wind and insects it’s almost impossible to have GMO free crops.
One thing the anti-labeling side of things believes is that labeling them will create a false sense of fear throughout the public. There is a large number of people that don’t entirely know what a GMO is and therefore doesn’t know any pros or cons about them. With the extensive testing on almost every crop to establish its levels of GMO’s there’s going to be a cost for these tests. These costs would occur somewhere in the chain of the economy. If the farmer has to pay for these tests then the cost would works its way up to the consumer. They also believe that if people really want to be GMO free, they should do their own research and find out what they can and can’t eat on their own.
There may be another way to look at the labeling of GMO arguments. In the article The Logic and Consequences of Labeling GMO’s, David Ailberman looks at it completely differently. First he looks at the benefits to GE crops. By using GE crops the yield goes up drastically. These crops can be designed to resist certain pests and even pesticides. So if you have a plant that can fight its own battles against nature you will have more product form the same amount of land. There are three huge benefits to this alone. One, more product in the same amount of time picking and planting means greater profits. Two, you won’t need to cut any more forests down for more agricultural fields less greenhouse gasses for the planet. Three, no more pesticides. This means no more pollutants running into our rivers and streams, and cheaper production of said crops. David Ailberman points out that the percentage of pesticides used across the world due to GE crops has dropped drastically. China’s usage alone has dropped 65% in 2002. Environmental reasons are the most reasons for a lot of people but they are not the only reasons in this case. With the large increase in yield per fields the economic benefits can’t be ignored. In soybeans alone, the annual gain in 1999 was $500 mil to $1.1 mil. In 2001 this jumped to $1.25 mil.
With these kinds of benefits to the environment and economy David thinks the question about labeling GMO crops should be turned around. He states that there is still only evidence that shows GE crops are “at least as safe as natural crops.” So why should they turn GMO crops into something that may scare people when most of the public isn’t informed enough about them to make an informed decision. The normal type of crop someday may become the GE crop due to its versatility. So maybe we should label the GMO free crops.
There has been one huge victory in the fight for the labeling of GMO’s. Vermont has passed a bill that requires the labeling of all GMO products in grocery stores according to The Center for Food Safety article, Victory for the Food Movement in Vermont on GMO Food Labeling. The governor also put out a statement saying that he will sign any bill that passes, regarding the labeling of GMO foods. The law states that all products effected by the bill has to be labeled by 2016. There are 34 other states that have introduced similar bills to their governments. Main and Connecticut have passed bills as well, but they have the stipulation that the surrounding states must pass similar bills as well before they go into effect.
Looking at all of the evidence for labeling GMO’s it comes down to consumer ease. It makes it easier for the average consumer to know what they are getting themselves into. As Vermont found out, there is an overwhelming amount of support for the labeling of them. There will be a lot of eyes watching how it unfolds there, and how they will tackle all of the issues. The benefits of these crops are undeniable but does mean they can run around hidden in our food? It looks like public is finding traction in the fight to find out exactly what they are eating. So it comes down to what else you want to see on your food label, “May contain GMO.” Or would you rather not know?