Bergfjord 1

Lon Bergfjord
Carolyn Holloway
English 2010
30 September 2015
Genetically Modified Organisms: The Case for Transparency in the Labeling of
Food
On July 23rd 2015, the US House of Representatives passed HR 1599. If
enacted, this bill would deny individual states the right to create laws requiring the
labeling of GMO containing foods. The bill, officially called The Safe and Accurate
Food Labeling Act, but nicknamed the Deny Americans the Right to Know or DARK
act, by opponents (Gillam, par.2), has brought a debate long simmering in American
politics to full boil. Should foods that contain products from genetically engineered
plants and animals be required to be labeled as such? Opponents of labeling, big
agribusiness, farmers, and food producers, claim that mandatory labeling would
create unwieldy and costly requirements for the industry (Gillam, par. 4). Further,
they claim that GMOs are substantially equivalent to their non-GMO counterparts,
and there is no evidence indicating deleterious health effects (Smith 130). However,
this is simply not true. There have been several studies linking these so called
transgenic products to a variety of health concerns (Smith 11). Certainly, there
are benefits to GMOs, however, in the face of a growing body of evidence indicating
potentially harmful side effects, there needs to be transparency about their
presence in food. Further, regardless of the debate whether GMOs pose any health
risks, the consumer alone should have the right to make informed decisions about
what they put in their bodies.
GMO Background and Extent of Use

Bergfjord 2
Genetically engineered plants have been used in commercial food production
for at least twenty years, and their development, marketing, and use in big
agribusiness has become a multi-billion dollar industry. In the mid-1990s,
companies like Monsanto engineered and patented varieties of corn, cotton, and
soy that were resistant to herbicides (herbicides also sold by Monsanto), drought
tolerant, and even varieties that produced their own insecticides (Fedoroff 201).
These genetically modified plants can decrease crop loss from pests (Fedoroff 212),
and allow for larger crop yields in marginal growing environments (Fedoroff 288).
For these reasons, they were quickly adopted by large scale agriculture. In 2014,
GM soy accounted for 82% of total global soy production (ISAAA, par. 5), and in
2014, a stunning 448 million acres of land were planted with GE crops (ISAAA, par.
2)

(ISAAA, par. 1)
What these data make clear is the economic investment that world and particularly
the US has in GMOs. It should also indicate the financial stake that biotech
companies have in keeping their products unregulated.

Bergfjord 3
Ineffectual Regulation
While the passage of HR 1599 seems a stunning affront to States rights and
transparency for consumers, it is hardly the first blow dealt in the debate over
GMOs. In 1992, the FDA first spelled out its stance on GE foods. They claimed, The
agency is not aware of any information showing that food derived by these new
methods differ from other foods in any meaningful way. (Smith 130) This stance led
to the adoption of a pro-biotech policy called substantial equivalence, where GE
foods could be marketed and sold unlabeled alongside, and often intermingled with,
non-GM products (Lapp and Baily 76). Under this policy, GM seed producers like
Monsanto and Syngenta are encouraged to voluntarily provide studies showing the
equivalence of new genetically engineered products being brought to market to
their non-genetically modified counterparts. However, for the most part these
studies compare nutritional content, often ignoring any concerns of allergens or
toxicity (Lapp and Baily 77).
The reason for such laissez-faire regulation is financial, pure and simple.
Between 1998 and 2002, the biotech industry spent $143 million dollars lobbying
for preferential treatment (Smith 143). Their lobby in Washington, along with
political contributions and advertising campaigns have ensured that the policy of
substantial equivalence and self-regulation continue. However, it is because of
this policy of self-regulation that there exists precious little objective science about
the safety of GMOs. Further, this policy has enabled the pro-GMO lobby to
systematically discredited and marginalize the objective studies that do exist.
Safety Concerns

Bergfjord 4
It wasnt until 2009 that the first independent and objective study on the long
term effects of eating GMO diet was released. Researchers at the University of
Caen in France looked at rats fed varieties of corn that were genetically engineered
to resist herbicides (Roundup Ready Corn), as well as Bt-Corn. Bt-corn has had a
bacterial gene inserted into its DNA that allows it to produce Bt-toxin, a potent
insecticide, in its kernels. Interestingly, this corn (as well as Bt-soy and Bt-cotton) is
often classified as an insecticide rather than food by the EPA (EPA, par. 2). The study
found severe changes to and tumors within the liver and kidneys. The heart,
adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system were also negatively affected,
which led to pre-mature death (Vendmois, Roullier, Cellier, Sralini 706).

(Adams)
After this study came out, the biotech industry went into spin mode
claiming fundamental problems with study design (Watson, par. 6). However, even
biotech sponsored studies cant prove the safety of GM crops. The first GM crop ever
brought to market, the so called FlavrSavr tomato, was quickly recalled for poor
sales. What is rarely reported however, are industry studies showing stomach and
intestinal lesions in rats fed the FlavrSavr tomatoes (Smith 137).

Bergfjord 5
While they havent yet been objectively tested, further concerns of GM
products include the potential for antibiotic resistance, and unforeseen allergens.
Scientists hypothesize that through horizontal gene transfer, GMO DNA coding for
antibiotic resistance could be transferred to bacteria in the guts of animals and
humans that eat these crops (Smith 60). Further, it has been posited that the
increase in trypsin-inhibitor in a type of GM soy has fomented the observed increase
in soy allergies worldwide (Smith 35). What is clear is that the safety concerns
regarding GMOs are real, and that more independent studies are needed. Until
then, labeling seems not only prudent but morally obligatory.
Cost of Labeling?
These safety concerns have made it clear that GMOs should at the very least
be labeled. However, the biotech and food processing industries have since turned
to the argument of increased cost, both for the consumer and for food producers, to
thwart labeling legislation. Labeling opponents claim mandatory labeling would cost
the consumer up to 500 dollars annually. Further, they claim that mandatory
labeling would place undue financial strain on farmers and food producers, as GM
crops and non-GM crops would have to be strictly segregated and processed food
recipes reformulated (Wheeler and Marcos, par. 6-7). However, this is argument is
groundless. Companies change their food packaging all the time without raising the
cost of the product. Further, Labeling of any product containing more than 0.9%
GMO has been the law of the land in European Union since 2002. Food costs in
Europe are generally equivalent to those in the United States. Ironically, many of
the same food producers that are fighting labeling in the United States have been
successfully separating, monitoring the origin, and labeling GE products in Europe
for over 10 years.

Bergfjord 6
Consumers Right to Know
Polls indicate that 93% of Americans deem, labeling highly desirable or
necessary (Lapp and Baily 119). In fact, there have been several attempts by US
states to mandate labeling. In 2002, a labeling bill was proposed in Oregon to
require labeling of any product containing over 0.1% GM ingredients. True to form,
the biotech industry spent nearly $54 million in a successful attempt to defeat the
measure (Smith 219). More recently, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have all
passed resolutions to enact mandatory labeling laws (Wheeler and Marcos, par. 1).
Though none of these laws have become effective yet, the passage of HR 1599 into
law would effectively deny the will and rights of the citizenry in these states, and
others in the future.
Food labeling is not a novel and costly process. During the debate on HR
1599, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D. Conn) stated, The FDA already requires
clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and food processes. GMOs should
be no different.(Wheeler and Marcos, par. 6) This quote really exemplifies the
argument for transparency. We label food with its content of fat, protein, and
carbohydrates because people have the right to make healthy choices about what
they are eating. In light of studies indicating safety concerns with GM crops in food,
GMOs should, at the very least, be clearly labeled, as well. Further, the ability of
states to inform and protect their citizens should not be consumed by corporate
greed and the politicians protecting the biotech industry. Consumers have the right
to know what they are putting in their bodies, regardless of the unsubstantiated
arguments of substantial equivalence and increased cost. Our health and freedoms
should always be the priority.

Bergfjord 7

Works cited
Adams, Mike. Shock Findings in New GMO Study: Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn
Grow Horrifying Tumors, 70% of Females Die Early Natural News, 19 September
2012. Web. 21 September 2015
<http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.h
tml#>

Bergfjord 8
Environmental Protection Agency. EPAs Regulation of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
Crops. EPA, May 2002. Web. 21 September 2015 <
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm>

Fedoroff, Nina and Nancy Brown. Mendel in the Kitchen: a Scientists View of
Genetically Modified Foods. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 2004. Print

Gillam, Carey. House Passes Anti-GMO Labeling Law Politics. Reuters, 23 July
2015. Web. 21 September 2015 < http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/ususa-gmo-labeling-idUSKCN0PX17920150723>

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). Pocket

K no. 16: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops in 2014. ISAAA, n.d.
Web. 21 September 2015
<http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/>

Lapp, Marc and Britt Baily. Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate
Takeover of Your Food. Monroe ME: Common Courage Press, 1998. Print

Smith, Jeffery. Seeds of Deception. Fairfield IA: Yes! Books, 2003. Print

Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three
GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biolological
Science 5.7 (2009) 706-726. Web. 21 September 2015
<http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm>

Waton, Paul. Monsanto Launches Damage Control over GMO/Cancer Study.

Infowars.com. Free Speech Systems LLC, 24 September 2012. Web. 30 September
2015 <http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-launches-damage-control-overgmocancer-study/>

Wheeler, Lydia and Christina Marcos. House Passes Bill Blocking States from
Requiring GMO Labels on Food. The Hill, 23 July 2015. Web. 21 September 2015 <
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248974-house-passes-gmo-labelingreform-bill>

Bergfjord 9