Buzz
You might assume that these labels are about health. Whether intentional or not, we are conditioned to pay attention to labels, and they often influence our perception of a food’s healthfulness. For years, food marketers have exploited this tendency by slapping health-related buzzwords like 'fiber' and 'vitamins' on sugary cereals.
It’s understandable to think labels could indicate healthiness. Whether consciously or not, we do tend to focus on them, and they shape how healthy we perceive a food item to be. Food companies have long taken advantage of this behavior, plastering labels with appealing claims about fiber and vitamins on even the least nutritious options.
Both the pro-labeling and anti-labeling campaigns are massive financial wastes, as GMOs are not purely good or bad.
Now, it's the turn of anti-GMO advocates. Vermont has become the first state to mandate labeling for food made from genetically modified crops, with the law scheduled to go into effect on July 1. Food companies, including General Mills and Mars, attempted but failed to block it. These companies will now apply labels to their products nationwide, as it's easier than trying to separate Vermont-bound packages at the factory. Politically, it’s an uplifting tale of grassroots groups winning over Big Food. The issue: GMO labels are, frankly, pointless.
Both pro-labeling and anti-labeling movements represent enormous wastes of money, as GMOs aren’t inherently good or bad. For instance, some GMO crops require more pesticide use than conventional ones, while others use less. If you're concerned about pesticide use, GMOs are a distraction. The core issues surrounding GMOs and non-GMOs often intersect at the boundary, not within one side.
Pro-labeling groups understand that GMOs don’t present any real health threats.
Ever since the approval of the first genetically modified crop in 1994, the technology has been met with vehement opposition from those who cite vague, unspecified health risks that may emerge in the future. However, these risks have yet to materialize.
To be absolutely clear: genetically modified food does not pose any credible health risks. Critics argue there hasn't been enough testing, yet thousands of studies, including long-term ones, have thoroughly investigated and found no evidence that GMO foods are more dangerous than non-GM options. While GMO safety may be politically controversial, it is not scientifically.
And yet, GMOs continue to evoke fear. Philosopher Stefaan Blancke mentioned in Scientific American that
[Negative portrayals of GMOs] grab our attention, are easy to process and remember, and therefore have a higher chance of being passed along and becoming widespread, even if they are false. This is one reason why many oppose GMOs—it simply seems logical that they must be harmful.
Those who oppose GMOs struggle to make a solid argument against them, as no valid one exists. Instead, they have been riding a wave of fear fueled by a lack of information.
When real dangers exist, they are not minimized. Cigarette warning labels don’t say 'partially produced with tobacco,' and anti-smoking campaigns don’t lightly refer to the health risks. They state clearly: 'Smoking causes cancer, heart attacks, and serious lung disease.'
Compare this with the reasoning offered by GMO labeling advocates. Most of their arguments are non-arguments, like 'Europe labels them.' They often claim there hasn’t been enough testing—true, but only if you’re flexible with the definition of 'enough.'
Even when pro-label groups attempt to cite scientific evidence, health risks are often overlooked. For instance, a group called Label GMOs claims that 'we see enough independent data to suggest possible health risks,' but they don’t specify what those risks are. Curious? Here’s where it gets interesting. They link to a petition that mentions 'considerable scientific evidence,' which is footnoted with a link to a 2009 press release from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Unfortunately, the link is broken. If you try it on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, you’ll find that it leads to a (now unavailable) position paper that finally references actual research, in the form of six studies conducted on mice and rats with unclear, if any, significance.
And this was the most evidence-backed argument I came across. The Just Label It campaign is one of the most vocal organizations, but their homepage doesn’t provide any information about health risks. Their Why Label? page doesn’t either, but it does link to a TED talk by chairman Gary Hirshberg. In it, he openly admits:
While safety is a valid concern, it’s not actually the reason these foods and ingredients need to be labeled.
The true reason, according to Hirshberg, is that people have a 'right to know' and that more testing is required.
Hirshberg does mention one study that found insecticidal toxin in Bt corn present in the blood of pregnant women. Sounds alarming, right? But remember, this toxin is found both in GMOs and in the completely safe, natural bacterial spores used as a pesticide on organic produce as well. Avoiding GMO-labeled food will not help you steer clear of this toxin.
GMO labels don't actually provide any meaningful information.
Concerns like Hirshberg's about pesticides highlight why GMO labeling is ineffective. It won't even achieve what those advocating for labels aim for. As previously discussed, the issues people have with GMOs are not unique to GMOs. Here are a few things labeling won't solve:
It won't help you avoid pesticides. Both the Bt toxin used as an insecticide and glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, are found in both GMO and non-GMO crops.
It won't eliminate superweeds, as this environmental issue is not specific to GMOs. (By the way, non-GMO sunflower oil also contributes to the superweed problem.)
It won't prevent unpredictable mutations in crop DNA, because mutation breeding causes even more DNA damage than any GMO technology, and no one is labeling that.
It won't prevent allergies, nor will it make tracking allergies easier. GMOs undergo testing for common allergens before approval. If you have an allergic reaction to a rare protein in a crop, a label saying 'partially produced with genetic engineering' won't help identify the culprit ingredient.
If GMO labeling doesn't help consumers make better choices, who benefits from it?
It benefits those who have been campaigning against non-existent risks to feel better about their cause. It also benefits brands like the Just Label It campaign’s 700 partners who sell non-GMO products.
The opposition from some food companies to GMO labeling is manipulating you: they claim you'll be scared off from buying perfectly safe food because of the GMO label. Both sides argue that 'consumer confusion' will occur unless they get their way, whatever that may be. Nice attempt, but the truth is that consumers are already confused. Both sides need to stop treating GMOs as either entirely good or entirely bad.
As consumers, we need to change our perspective too. A 'No GMOs' label shouldn’t make us feel reassured; it’s simply another marketing trick with no real health impact. Likewise, seeing a 'partially produced with genetic engineering' label shouldn't cause us to avoid a product.
Illustration by Sam Woolley.
