Democrats and Republicans are polar opposites on most issues; however, both can agree on genetically modified organisms labeling. On Thursday, July 14, just before going on its summer recess, Congress passed a controversial bill on biotech labeling. Most foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must now be identified as such.
Since genetic engineering is such a powerful technology, it should be no surprise that it is a divisive topic. Results from a recent poll indicate that around 37 percent of the public thinks GMOs are generally safe. The general public is clearly uneasy about genetically modified foods and is thus demanding more transparency and clarity for the composition of their food choices.
Critics of biotechnology argue that it can spawn new classes of accidents and abuses. Some protesters oppose biotechnology, thinking they are attacking Monsanto and other large corporations with morally questionable marketing practices.
Others oppose GE on the grounds of uncertainty regarding the long-term risks and threats that GMOs pose on human health and the environment. Despite the general consensus among the scientific community that GMOs are safe to eat, the opposition argues that it is possible to engineer a plant that would be bad for human health. Such a plant could be the result of an accident or a deliberate terrorist attack.
Precautionary positions are sometimes efficient economic guidelines — think about environmental policy on nuclear waste disposal, for example. But even if the fears of food technology critics are justified, can the rest of the globe afford to take their position?
Swelling populations and income growth around the world are fueling unprecedented increases in the global demand for food. To meet the world’s appetites, food production will have to increase drastically in the next four decades. As pressures from climate change make food production progressively more challenging, biotechnology will play a key role in helping meet these needs.
GE promises to revolutionize agriculture, and it is already offering many economic, health and even environmental benefits to both consumers and producers of agricultural commodities around the world. Some of the successes of crop biotechnology include increased yields, reduced reliance on pesticides, improved nutritional value of crops and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Clearly, this is a complicated issue deserving of careful and intelligent discussion. The passing of this bipartisan bill makes it look as if Democrats and Republicans can be quick to agree on something complicated and extremely important.
Although the bill mandates disclosure, it also allows companies to avoid the on-package labeling that consumers typically support. Instead, companies can label their products through scannable smartphone codes.
In addition, the bill does not mandate that companies explain what type of GE technology was used, on what traits, or why. In other words, there won’t be an easily recognizable symbol stigmatizing a particular food product for containing GE ingredients. There also won’t be a whole lot of information for concerned consumers to attain.
It seems to me that the practical consequences of this bill are minimal at best meaning that Democrats and Republicans agree on something, something that doesn’t matter.
