The guest opinion by Martin Donohoe and Ray Seidler (“Oregonians should know what is in their food,” July 20) provided a misleading view of the science and law behind the proposal to label crops made from genetically modified organisms.
Labels can inform or mislead. Our marketplace is literally drowning in labels, most of which have little meaning except to promote the sales of some products over others. What consumers want is labels that are reliable and meaningful, not more labels that do not accurately inform about health and environment.
We have a labeling law. The Food and Drug Administration requires foods that are “materially” different in nutrition or safety, positive or negative, to be labeled as such — today. The focus is on the product, not the method. This “product not process” approach has been agreed to by numerous high-level scientific and government agencies around the world, including our own National Academy of Science, the Ecological Society of America, and the American Medical Association. …
GMO crops are getting more diverse every year; a single label for all of them is misleading. Some of the major crops have enabled huge reductions of pesticide use; others offer improved drought tolerance and healthfulness of derived oils; still others include staples such as potato and corn with reduced natural toxins, and there are many in the science or development pipelines that are enriched in critical nutrients or have reduced allergens.
Even the herbicide-tolerant crops cited by Donohoe and Seidler have provided large environmental benefits by promoting low tillage farming. …
Donohoe and Seidler imply that mainstream science is finding GMO crops harmful to consume. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The “mounting evidence” of harm is the result of a small number of highly contested papers from vocal anti-GMO activists. One highly publicized paper was so egregious it was declared irrelevant by the European Food Safety Authority and was retracted by the journal that originally published it. There are literally hundreds of high quality scientific papers, many with no involvement of biotech companies, that have supported the safety of current food with biotech ingredients. The finding of safety is also supported by intensive reviews by scientific and regulatory agencies worldwide, including the World Health Organization, the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge (commonly known as the Royal Society, or Royal Academy of Sciences) and our own FDA and EPA. …
Mandatory GMO labels typically reduce rather than increase consumer choice, as we have seen in Europe. Labels that might stigmatize brands are often avoided by companies, thus lower priced foods with GMO ingredients are often removed from the marketplace entirely. The separate harvest, storage, shipping and monitoring systems required by stringent labeling laws like the Oregon ballot measure would impose large costs upon the food system that consumers would ultimately pay. The brunt of this increase in food cost is of course most strongly felt by the poor. Is that an ethical action that Oregonians want to take?
We have choice in the market now in the form of widely available organic food, which must be grown without GMO varieties. Voluntary GMO-free labeling is increasing daily, as well. The marketplace is offering a choice for those who are wary. It does not seem that a government program is needed for those with concerns over GMOs.
I fully support efforts to educate Oregonians about their food and its safety and health and have been active doing that in teaching and outreach for many years. However, this punitive labeling measure would further confuse, reduce choice and add to food costs. It will mislead rather than enlighten.
Steve Strauss is a distinguished professor at Oregon State University, former director of the OSU program on outreach in biotechnology and a member of the governor’s task force on GMO crops.
