Newswise — Margaret Smith is a professor of plant breeding and genetics focusing on developing genetic materials to improve corn productivity. She leads an extension program to help farmers and the general public better understand plant breeding and genetic engineering. Following the rejection of GMO labeling bill in Washington State, Smith comments on the results, the ongoing debate, and the cost of implementing a state labeling law.
Smith says:
“The Washington state proposition to label foods containing ingredients derived from genetically engineered plants stimulated a lot of spending, particularly by groups opposed to labeling. The argument against labeling from large agricultural industries is that genetically engineered product labels imply some negative effect in foods produced from a genetically engineered crop variety, but no such effect has been detected for such crops. On the other hand, groups who support labeling are concerned about knowing whether genetically engineered crops are in a food product for various reasons, ranging from health and safety concerns to opposition to large corporate influence and control over genes in our food supply.
“For the genetically engineered crop varieties that are being grown commercially in the U.S. at present, there is no credible evidence of food safety concerns. However, there is a strong tradition in the U.S. for people's ‘right to know.’ There is generally large public support for labeling when the question is framed as a ‘right to know’ question, so it is not surprising that genetically engineered labeling bills have become more and more common. On the other hand, if the question is simply ‘what type of information do you think is missing from food labels?’ there are very, very few people who will come up with genetically engineered labeling in their answers.
“Support for labeling must be balanced against the costs. There would be costs to generate new labels and, if the industry chooses to take this approach, the enormous cost of establishing separate and parallel crop handling and processing streams – grain elevators, shipping, processing plants, marketing chains – to keep the genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered crops and products separate. Very few companies would be likely to make a state-specific label and keep separate products for just one state. So an unintended outcome might be that fewer products would be available in a state that enacts a labeling law on its own.”
RSS