Editorial: Law about GMOs unnecessary

In November, Californians will vote on whether or not to require their food labels to state if a food is genetically engineered. A nonprofit called California Right to Know filed a petition for a statewide vote. The proposed amendment, Proposition 37, would require foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled so that people are more informed of their foods’ sources.

According to the World Health Organization — the United Nations’ coordinating authority on health — GMOs contain genetic material altered in a way that does not occur naturally. When engineering GMOs, scientists are able to transfer genes between organisms, including to unrelated species.

According to National Public Radio, the crops that currently contain GMOs in the U.S. are corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, squash, sugar beets (which are refined into sugar) and papaya. GMO tomatoes, rice and potatoes are government-approved but not yet commercially available. The proposed labeling law would not apply to certain foods — meat from GMO-fed livestock, dairy products, food from restaurants and alcohol, for example.

According to the WHO, most GMOs were produced to create crops more resilient to pests or viruses. Several potential risks to human health — including toxicity, potential for allergic reaction, genetic stability of the organism and nutritional effects — have been tested in GMOs. Foods containing GMOs that are currently on the market have passed these safety tests, although the WHO still recommends that genetically modified foods be assessed and approved on an individual basis.

But instituting a labeling law such as the one proposed in California would have significant potential fiscal impacts. Californians will have to absorb the incurred costs. According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, California’s Department of Public Health will have to spend potentially more than $1 million per year on enforcement of the labeling law.

With this in mind, we do not believe it’s necessary for California to mandate the labeling of foods containing GMOs. GMOs are rigorously tested before being sold, and there is no indication that they are harmful to people’s health. Because the actual risk of consuming GMOs is low, we don’t think that it necessitates labeling on foods. In contrast, it is very much necessary for the government to mandate that manufacturers clearly label foods that contain ingredients such as peanuts or shellfish, because these ingredients pose a very real health threat.

However, we are aware that some consumers are concerned about the potential health threats of GMOs and would like to be aware of GMO presence in their food. This could be addressed by concerned manufacturers independently choosing to label their products. Independent certifying bodies could certify foods GMO-free and provide labels for organizations. This model would be similar to the food-certification organizations that exist for organic, kosher, fair-trade and halal certifications.

While some Californians would undoubtedly like to know about the presence of GMOs in their food, the lack of scientific evidence of harm to people — along with potentially high costs of implementing a labeling law — make it more appropriate for individual corporations to decide to have their products certified GMO-free.