November 6, 2013 at 3:08am
a manifesto of sorts...
In 2012 I voted in favor of CA Prop. 37, which would have required labeling of products containing GMO's. I have since changed my mind, not because of the arguments of the ag or food industries, but entirely because of positions taken by people in the anti-GMO movement.
1 - One can be anti-Monsanto, anti-seed monopoly, and pesticide-skeptical without being anti-GMO. Most of the arguments used against GMO's as a whole are unsupported by conventional science. It has been a turn-off to see how readily people in the anti-GMO movement tout rumors, misinformation, and dodgy science.
2- GMO labeling doesn't serve MY labeling needs. I'm opposed specifically to pesticide-resistant crops. But GMO labeling lumps them all together, as if we should regard them as equally harmful. Sorry, but a lot of us disagree on that lumping.
3 - GMO products are easily avoided. For those who wish to avoid some or all, that goal can easily be achieved simply by buying organic.
4 - "Scarlet letter" vs. positive labeling. Since there is every incentive for manufacturers who wish to cater to the anti-GMO market to voluntarily label their products GMO-free, I am getting the impression that the main function of mandatory GMO labeling is to elevate their sectarian beliefs about "harmful" food to the same status as a government warning label. Note that Jewish and Muslim groups use "approved" labels (kosher or halal) - they don't force "disapproved" labels on prohibited foods.
5 - Who reads labels? I suppose people with critical allergic reactions. I read labels frequently, especially for package weight, to anticipate how much sugar is in a product, and to check for adulterants. Products are already required to show all sorts of potentially useful info. But here's the kicker: I can't recall seeing anyone besides myself reading labels. And suddenly, labeling becomes important enough to be worth an expensive election battle. Hey, let's get real!
[LL] Some recent events helped gel my thoughts on the matter. 522, the WA labeling initiative was one factor. But more important was the environmental struggle in Hawaii, against the chemical-agriculture giants. I noticed that in at least two locations, some pesticide activists seemed to be resisting being co-opted by the GMO people. I had seen hardly any such push-back on FB, where anti-GMO posts are generally accepted and shared verbatim, w/o any critical response.
One such comment from Kauai: 'Some ... have mistakenly labeled our struggle an "anti-GMO" movement, reducing our activism to mere opposition to a technology. ... Within the global movement that we are a part of, there are people who do not believe we should be influencing life at the fundamental level that GMO technology does. There are also a lot of people in the movement who are not strictly opposed to the science of genetic engineering itself. In regards to GMOs, what is being opposed is the direction and control of that science, and the resulting social and ecological devastation of how it is being used.
No comments:
Post a Comment