We Should Not Oppose GMO Labeling [Opinion]

david rosenbergerUse of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for horticultural crop production is a hot-button issue for consumers, farmers, food manufacturers, and retailers. Many, perhaps most, apple growers oppose the introduction of the genetically engineered Arctic Apple. Much of that opposition probably stems from the public relations disaster created by the Alar scare that rocked the industry almost 25 years ago. Although no one wants a replay of that fiasco, I believe the apple industry should be careful about positioning in the GMO debates.

Advertisement

In the short term, the produce industry would probably benefit from legislation requiring foods containing GMOs be labeled as such, because most fresh fruits and vegetables are not GMO foods.
Food manufacturers, and to my surprise — many university scientists — are fighting GMO labeling with trite responses such as “We know GMOs are safe” and “It’s the same as a fast-track system of conventional plant breeding.” Those arguments may be correct, at least for some GMOs, but they lack credibility with both the fear-mongering media and the GMO-phobic public.

If GMOs Were Labeled
If all products in the grocery stores had to carry GMO labeling, consumers who are petrified of GMOs could avoid them, whereas most folks would ignore the GMO labels and buy the same products that they always bought. GMO labeling would allow those who are psychologically allergic to GMOs to adjust their purchases whereas most folks would say, as they do with high-fat and/or high-salt food, “Well, it hasn’t killed me yet!” Thus, GMO labeling would defuse the issue, inform everyone about what foods contain GMOs, and allow our food production and marketing system to adjust accordingly.

The upside to GMO labeling would be that those fearing GMOs would move away from processed foods, many of which already contain GMOs, to more fresh fruits and vegetables. We might actually see increases in apple consumption. This approach is apparently already paying off for FirstFruits Marketing of Selah, WA, where folks had the foresight to label their new proprietary yellow “Opal” apple as a non-GMO apple.

Sound Reasoning
In summary, I propose four lines of reasoning to suggest that the apple industry should avoid getting caught on the wrong side of the GMO debates:

Top Articles
Have a Plan For Climate Change? Why Fruit Growers Need To Act Now
  1. As noted above, apples (other than the Arctic Apple) are not GMOs. In the short term the industry could use that as a marketing advantage.
  2. At some point in the future, the survival of the apple industry might depend on a GMO solution. That situation already exists for citrus producers in Florida where citrus greening is wiping out the industry. Gene jockeys have come up with a GMO solution to citrus greening (although it still needs more testing), but the citrus industry is scared to death of GMOs. And that fear of GMOs may literally be the death of the Florida citrus industry because right now there are no other viable solutions. At the moment, we don’t need GMO apples, but who knows what might happen if some foreign pest is introduced in the future?
  3. The tides of change will inexorably push the public into accepting GMOs. As noted above, most folks are already eating GMOs because, according to at least one source, 70% of processed foods in grocery stores already contain GMOs. Thus, a reality check on what has already happened suggests that either the public will eventually accept GMOs as inescapable or else a lot of folks will go hungry in the future.
  4. Buying into the anti-GMO phobia suggests that the industry accepts and condones the anti-science nonsense promoted by most GMO-phobes. If we abandon science, where will the list of demands end? Without good science as a standard for decision-making, all food producers will be increasingly subjected to whimsical changes in both regulations and consumer choices.

Let’s not get distracted by the GMO debate. Instead, let’s focus on the health benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables (GMO or not) while quietly promoting transparency via GMO labeling. GMO labeling will allow the markets to adjust to meet the preferences of all consumers, not just the vocal anti-GMO minority. At the same time, those who distrust GMOs will buy more of our conventional non-GMO apples.

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

The article starts out wanting to be unbiased, but by name calling at the end of the article, it shows how biased David Rosenberger is in this article. The organic/natural foods sector is the only one that has been showing significant growth over the last decade. The conventional/GMO sector has showed contraction almost every year.

Smart producers (Farmers, large agri-business) know that the smart money is on NON-GMO’s and natural foods. The only people who DON’T benefit from this are growth is the large agri-business who want to force GMOs so they can patent all of the seeds and drive up the cost of seeds with technology fees and bans on saving seed.

GMO labeling is fought with so much effort because large agri-business fears another Europe. When labeling of GMOs was required the sales of products containing GMOs dropped by 90%. There are virtually zero GMO producers in Europe because their market does not want it. Large European seed breeders, Like Bejo and Rijk Zwaan, are issuing statements that all of their available seeds are non-GMO: http://www.bejoseeds.com/Files/Filer/Pdf/Bejo_EN/Declarations/GMO-verklaring%20ENG.pdf
http://www.rijkzwaan.co.uk/wps/wcm/connect/RZ+UK/Rijk+Zwaan/Company/Statements/Marketing+Statements

It is clear that the public does not want GMOs in their food supply. When articles, such as this one, start calling the customers in the only segment of the industry that is growing: “GMO-phobes” it only discredits the rest of the article. Numerous studies show that organic and natural foods are just as healthy, if not more nutrient dense while lacking the herbicide and pesticide residue that conventional may contain (even if it is below what the government says is safe or acceptable.)

I grow produce and sell to the public. ALL customers, even the grocery stores, ask how I produce. NONE want GMOs. Some care about pesticide residue, some do not. We use synthetic fertilizer and green manure crops for fertilizer. MOST people do not care about this aspect. Monsanto, Syngenta, and the other large breeders are deathly afraid of their market segments being decimated by the European conventional breeders. Monsanto, Sakata and Syngenta have spent all of their energy developing GMO and CMS breeding lines. If food labeling laws push growers to plant non-GMO varieties, the Europeans will be the ones that are best positioned to deliver modern non-GMO hybrids. THAT is what the industry is afraid of and why they are opposing GMO labeling.

With new protein marker technology to guide the selection of breeding pairs, GMO technology will only be used for the creation of transgenic organisms. Almost 100% of people when polled oppose the transfer of genes between organisms that could not happen in nature. It was once explained to me by a customer that they viewed GMOs as the nuclear genie. Those working on developing nuclear technology believed it would be the savior of energy production. We see now how misguided that wonder idea has been. Mountains of nuclear waste with no disposal site. Accidents like Fukushima.

In addition you have companies using GMO technologies to insert genes that codes for production of drugs, human irreversible sterilizing agents and other more nefarious purposes.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/first-plant-derived-biologic-drug-approved-human-use-fda
http://www.rense.com/general13/scientistscreate.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-coming-harvests-farm-aceutical-corn/

So when companies are publically developing GMO varieties that contain drugs, sterilizing agents and who knows what else, growing them in the wild and the government says they will take ZERO responsibility for testing and assuring us that this will not wind up in the general food supply (From contamination, cross pollination, etc.) why should we the public trust that GMOs are safe?

We even have China rejecting close to one million tons of GMO corn from the US as unsafe: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/china-corn-usa-idUSL4N0MM0KY20140325

The apple industry SHOULD be worried about introducing GMO apples. The whole conventional industry stands to lose a lot of money if their product is not trusted unless it is organic. As people become more aware of what some companies are using GMO technology to produce, the whole industry stands to be hurt by consumer backlash.

Breeding an apple that you can’t visibly tell if it is rotten or bad only benefits the producer and industry, it does NOT benefit the consumer. If you want your apples to not brown so quickly, put a little vitamin C on it. Ever heard of fruit fresh? I don’t think people have a problem with getting more vitamins when the side benefit is fresh fruit.

Avatar for Joel Joel says:

Matt – you are speaking in absolutes which are simply not supported by the facts.

You suggest: “it’s clear the public does not want GMOs” but this is far from the case. For example a May 2014 from the International Food Information Council asked consumers what foods they are avoiding. Just ONE percent of the 1,000 surveyed said they’re avoiding biotech foods: http://www.foodinsight.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pAjNI84eiyo%3d&tabid=1499

Regarding Arctic apples, specifically, the vast majority of apple eaters have indicated that they are interested in buying them, particularly once they learn more about the science behind them: http://www.arcticapples.com/blog/joel/little-education-goes-long-way-arctic%E2%84%A2-apples

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

Hi Joel,

Your sources come from organizations that are pushing for acceptance of GMOs. It is no wonder that their surveys support their position. When the public at large is polled the results are different:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/04/why-we-need-to-label-gmo-foods/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=1&

It is all in how the question is asked. If I did a survey of 1000 people and asked “Do you support the use of modern methods and technology to make electricity production more efficient”, I would expect the vast majority of people to respond yes. If however I asked the question “Do you support the construction of modern nuclear reactors for efficient production of electricity?” the responses would be VERY different. People are now much more knowledgeable about the risk/benefit ratio of nuclear power. Those pushing for it can no longer wrap themselves up the “green” label.

Nowhere in the survey was the use of the phrase “Genetically Engineered” supplied to those surveyed. Biotechnology can be anything from new plant hybrids bred conventionally to Gene Splicing using virus’s (Transgenic Modification). Without stating this to those surveyed it is not possible to say the public accepts GMOs. If you put forth that the public supports GMOs then you have to state that. GMOs does not automatically equal biotechnology.

When properly asked the question “Do you support or oppose use of genetically modified crops in food production?” the results are VERY different. This question is the HONEST question. The one asked by the IFIC is deceptive and the link you want to draw is just not there.

As to the artic apple survey, they don’t release the survey questions, who was surveyed and how. They only list the results. I am sorry, but for the same reasons as listed above, I don’t trust companies that do their own surveys that support their own position. It is easy to do a survey and get the results that you want. Do most people want a non-browning apple when they cut it open? Probably. Does that mean they want a Genetically Engineered apple? I doubt they asked that question. Using wide aching terms like “Biotechnology” doesn’t mean anything to a consumer. It is a term that encompasses too many aspects of production.

Artic Apples are going to have a very hard sell. They will be the Flavor Saver tomato of the 90’s. The exact same survey’s were done to support the flavor saver tomato. Yet it was a bust in the market. No one wanted it once they knew it was genetically engineered. I feel the same will be true of the artic apple.

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

One other thing to keep in mind is that safety testing of GMOs is no longer being done by the FDA or the USDA. Most safety testing is done by industry and many of those tests are done for short periods.

Do you realize that the DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) was concerned about stomach lesions that were seen in controlled feeding studies done on rats fed the FLAVR SAVR tomato? Calgene (Now part of Monsanto) tried to explain this away as incidental by having a third study done that showed all rats had incidental stomach bleeding. The DHSS was not buying it and had serious concerns about approving the GMO tomato.

Original report here: http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/fhlkp.pdf

Saying we have been eating GMOs for 30 years and people are not dead is a bad link as well. We have higher rates of cancer, IBS and digestion problems today that we did 30 years ago.

It is these concerns and past industry behavior that makes many consumers wary of transgenic modification of plants. If nature will allow it and it can be done sexually, then I don’t think most consumers will have a problem with it. If it requires crossing a species barrier then all bets are off on how the insertion of a foreign gene will affect the final product.

This whole debate though comes down to consumer perception and the old adage of “The customer is always right.” If they won’t buy it, then it doesn’t matter how great it may be.

Avatar for David Goforth David Goforth says:

Matt, I read every bit of your ranting and raving and got down to the last sentence where you said “If they won’t buy it, then it doesn’t matter how great it may be.” Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for the customer to made a purchase decision if the customer could tell the GMO status because it was labeled? If you could agree with that, then you should agree with Dr Rosenberger’s original premise that we shouldn’t oppose GMO labeling. One thing for certain, you proved his first statement about it being a hot button issue.

Avatar for "Butch" Palmer, Springbrook Orchards "Butch" Palmer, Springbrook Orchards says:

With 10+ new apple varieties coming to the market in the next few years, we don’t need ANY negative things like GMO apples in the public. The consumer will not take time to see WHICH apple variety is GMO, they’ll just switch to oranges. But Dr. Rosenberger’s comments insure his place in articles of the New York Times and all the other anti-GMO publications. I’m sure he’ll also make a CNN appearance.

Avatar for cas cas says:

“The tides of change will inexorably push the public into accepting GMOs. As noted above, most folks are already eating GMOs because, according to at least one source, 70% of processed foods in grocery stores already contain GMOs.” I am not going to be the sheep following the Judas goat to slaughter. The health effects of GMO will eventually show it’s ugly face and David if someone from you family becomes ill from GMO you just might change you words. Because no one cares until it hits them home.

Avatar for David Goforth David Goforth says:

The entirety of my statement was that Matt should agree with dr Rosenberger on labeling and GMO was a hot button issue. Nothing there that I would change following the death of a family member. For that matter, I also believe in transparency in general and GMO labeling in particular. Although I have to ask if there is an economic advantage to GMO free why don’t people with gMO free products label their products and win in the market place. Anyway, I don’t see any belief there I would change following the death of a family member. actually as I read the comments, looks like everybody here probably believes in labeling. somebody actually reading the content of the comments would wonder about the tone of the debate.

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

I do agree with GMO labeling. I do not like negative labeling, such as I noted above with this article. I don’t believe that GMO’s are inevitable and needed to feed the world.

I see GMOs as a way for a producer to farm more land by eliminating extra passes over the field. GMOs are about PROFIT and CONTROL and not necessarily about increasing the food supply. They do not decrease the amount of pesticide in the environment and our food supply. The plant produces the pesticide inside it’s cell structure. We eat most of the plant that now contains the pesticide put there by GMOs.

The amount of herbicides sprayed, specifically glyphosate, has increased exponentially since the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops. More acres are sprayed today than at any time in history.

My point is that many of the talking points for GMOs are not true or are deceptive.

Advertisement