Whole Foods Market Pilots Non-GMO Labels

WilliamB, I agree that it could be difficult and expensive to track. Add to that the difficulty in keeping non-GMO crops isolated from a growing population of GMO crops and this labeling project could be doomed to fail. But I’m going to choose to be optimistic that consumers WANT this labeling and will BUY the non-GMO foods, which will make the challenges more surmountable.

I am 100% for eating organic, eating whole and eating local. But I have yet to see ANY reason why I should avoid GMO foods. I think the term “genetically modified” sounds scary, like a term from science fiction, and people imagine mutant tomatoes with eyes or ears or something, and they put GMO foods in the same boat as all the other horrific junk that is regularly seen in processed foods.

GMO foods can help farmers in the developing world break from the cycle of pesticide addiction, they can make crops hardier, bigger, sweeter, whatever — all without you having to consume any extra chemicals, like you do with pesticides. No scientific evidence has been presented to make me avoid GMO foods, and labeling GMO foods feeds into the irrational paranoia that somehow just because something has been through a scientific process which they don’t understand, that it must be scary and dangerous. In europe, the regulators caved to the unfounded, uneducated demands of the masses they serve.

Please. All those other ingredients in your processed foods are much scarier. I’ll take GMO soy beans over evaporated cane juice any day.

I whish that we could clearly and efficiently label and seperate GMO crops for the other ones. However, since it’s required by the law, it will be quite difficult to avoid any cross contamination. I still applaud this initiative since it clearly shows that people wants to have the choice. We should be able to choose what we put in our body.

Of course, there are many other scary things in processed food already. But compared to GMOs, we can track most of them through the ingredients list, so we still have a way to choose. There are more and more foods that are now possibly genetically modified, and not only in processed foods. Corn, soy, potatoes, zucchinis and papayas are a good example of whole foods that are often genetically modified.

Unfortunately, our best bet to avoid GMOs is to continue to buy organic. It doesn’t mean that we a re 100% sure that there’s no traces of GMOs, but at least, the regulation does not permit it.

GMOs are not a good way to reduce pesticide use. The best way to reduce the use of chemicals in our food supply is to choose alternative growing methods.

@Rachel, if you have some citations for those studies, I would appreciate them. I had a look on Google Scholar and had trouble refining the results enough to find anything useful. I would normally have agreed with @unstuck, but if there are controlled studies showing these problems, I might change my mind.

Ok, let me try to clear a few things up here.

“This is a relatively new science, and the pros and cons are still being weighed among experts.”

Actually, it’s a few decades old, and, of the professional biologists & horticulturists I’ve met (and being a student horticultural science at a state university, I’ve met my share), not one is deputing their benefits. Those who study plants specifically are quite open about the benefits of GMOs. They’re either ignorant or lying (as part of the Great Monsanto Conspiracy no doubt™)? Highly unlikely. I always see that conspiracy card used as an argument, but conspiracies aren’t arguments, they’re excuses. Scientific consensus (of actual scientists, not the occasional vocal crank) is quite supportive of GMOs. Saying that experts question their benefits is like saying that the benefits of vaccination are being deputed…they’re really not, not anymore, not by actual scientists anyway.

“This is because the agricultural lobbies convinced the government that GMO corn is no different from regular corn in its gastronomic and nutritional qualities and therefore needs no special marking.”

That’s kinda true. Can anyone provide an objective, observed, difference between the two? Can anyone name me a single compound found in GMO food not found in their non-modified counterparts (besides, of course, thing intentionally there, like the Cry protein in Bt crops)? Can anyone name a genetic reason for GMOs being harmful to human health, or a way genetic engineering alters the chemical pathways within an organism to produce a harmful protein or chemical? Can anyone provide any good, robust, repeated, peer reviewed studies showing harm? No, weak arguments like in Jeffery Smith’s books or cherry picking like the Séralini study don’t count.

“Bu the reason is much simpler: If people could choose between a known product without GMOs, or the same exact version but labeled as containing GMOs, most would play it safe and choose no-GMO.”

No, the reason is that there is no moral or rational high ground to force labeling. All it would be doing is scaring people. People who hear all this scaremongering (and there is no other word for it) would see ingredients with GMOs in them and wonder if they’re really safe since them must be warned of their presence. Try selling vegetables with a label that says ‘Grown under radiation.’ See what happens. Even though the radiation in question here would be the form of radiation known as visible light, it would still scare people, and that’s not right. If someone can provide a reasonable amount of evidence that something is dangerous (as is the case with, say, trans-fats) then fine, label them, or better yet, ban them. If not, well, then it’s a matter of preference, not safety (like kosher or halal), and as such, it’s no one’s job to see to it that anyone’s personal lifestyle is catered to. I know someone who would probably like it if products with gelatin in them said if the gelatin came from a pig or a cow, but I don’t see him demanding that all food have mandatory halal/haraam labels.

“The Non-GMO project has set at its goal to raise people’s awareness to this matter and created a label (yes, another label…)”

Baloney. If they want to raise awareness, why aren’t they presenting science based arguments? Bt crops have reduced pesticides, and increased the biodiversity of non-target insects. Ht crops have reduced the environmental impacts of agriculture by allowing no-till farming. The virus resistant papaya saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. Why aren’t they mentioning that? No, just FUD. Like most, if not all anti-GMO groups, they’re there to push an ideology, not to inform. They’re just like the anti-vax groups, and just as wrong.

And before someone inevitably says it, no, I’m not being paid by any company. Just getting that out there, because every time anyone defends GMOs, the first response is always ‘How much are ‘They’ paying you to say that?’ Conspiracies are a convenient way to dismiss things one does not agree with, a denial of evidence to preserve a belief, and like I said already, they’re rarely more than simple excuses at heart.

I think this is the most interesting subject in the world. Such a shame that there is so much ignorance and misinformation out there about it. If you’re interested in some good science based perspective on this stuff, try reading the site Academics Review, Tomorrow’s Table, or talking to the folks at Biofortified.org.