This document discusses arguments against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. It argues that such labeling would be misleading to consumers and undermine consumer choice, environmental sustainability, and efforts to address world hunger. The document asserts that genetically engineered crops have been proven safe based on scientific research and have environmental benefits over conventional agriculture by reducing pesticide use. However, mandatory labeling could increase food costs by requiring changes to production and supply chains to avoid the GE label. Overall, the document concludes that widespread acceptance rather than fear of genetically engineered foods will be necessary to sustainably feed the growing global population.

1. Klarissa Francik
Entom 401, Essay 2
November 26, 2014
The GMO Label—Misleading the Masses
Sex, drugs and rock and roll. The sway of Elvis’ hips in the 50’s and the
penetrating new sound of the electric guitar in the 60’s struck fear in Christian
families everywhere. Thankfully, the pleasure derived from listening to the Beatles
is, in the mainstream, no longer correlated with satanic influence and the short road
to hell. But the hubris of the uninformed activist knows no bounds to precaution, at
the cost of exponential benefits. Fear sells. It comes as no surprise then that the
public majority are proponents for the scarlet letter “GE” on food products
containing genetically engineered ingredients. However, unlike rock music, GE
products promise a lot more than a groovy tune, and we currently find ourselves in
a vital period of decision that will appreciably impact the entire world for better or
for worse.
The advocates for GE food labeling maintain that it is a “right to know” issue
concerning food safety, environmental impact and overall choice. What consumers
do not realize is that they are fighting against the very things they believe they are
fighting for. GE products and the labeling process undermines the right to know by
misleading the consumer as to the efficacy of genetically engineered food, has the
potential to change the production process with negative impacts to the
environment and has the additional side effect of increasing the cost of food, all of
which ultimately reduces consumer choice. This is, no doubt, a more complex issue
than meets the eye, and the consumer should know exactly what this decision
means.
IT’S YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW
Genetic Modification

2. The terms “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified organism” could
be misnomers. They inspire the scene of a mad scientist creating the next
Frankenstein, which has led to the ever-popular new term “frankenfoods”, coined in
1992 by Boston English professor, Paul Lewis, when speaking of GE/GMO food
(Ganzel 2009). The terms imply that people are doing something that does not
naturally occur, when in fact it is a well studied, proven, evolutionary process
(Keeling & Palmer 2008). The implementation of this process at the hands of
scientists is genetically less complex than that of classical plant breeding, as
suggested in the following passage:
“…with the rDNA [genetic engineering] approach the amount of
genetic information modified is small, one or a few genes, compared
with the classical breeding approach where all the tens of thousands
of genes in the organism are involved, potentially exchanging
positions” (Lemaux 2008).
Thus, if consumers are worried about complications in genetic alterations in their
food, such as the imposition of food allergens, all other food products aside from
what is considered a GMO by the public should be the topic of discussion, including
every commercialized food product known to man. This confusion persists in the
mind of scientists with its inherent contradiction:
“Use of the terms GMO and LMO can be confusing, especially to
geneticists, given that all foods eaten today have been altered or
modified genetically through natural or human-imposed mutations or
crossing” (Lemaux 2008).
If this is a misleading term for scientists who grasp the full implications of
genetic modification and diversity, how much more than is it for the public trying to
use a simplified label to make informed choices.
Nutritional Equivalence & Food Safety
The Beatles were not satanic minions dragging their followers to hell, and
neither are GE ingredients nutritionally different or less safe than their non-GE
counterparts. These are fear-based ideas that can be put to rest. Nutritional

3. likeness and safety are the current stipulation for those in charge of food regulation.
The foods have to be identical in nutrition to their counterparts, and they can’t have
introduced toxins or allergens that don’t already exist in the non-GE form, or they
simply don’t make it to the shelf (Chassy, et al 2014).
The supply of research in this area is beyond extensive. There are hundreds
of independent studies and government-based studies in multiple countries, coming
to the same conclusion:
“These studies, including some long-term research spanning multiple
generations and many years, generally support the conclusion that
there are no detrimental effects from the consumption of the
currently available biotech crops” (Chassy, et al 2014).
“… the American Medical Association wrote the following in 2012:
‘There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of
rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated
organisms…the risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-
engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with
the introduction of unmodified organisms” (Chassy, et al 2014).
These statements are seemingly endless amongst various groups globally. Safety
concerns as applied to current commercialized GE food products are strictly
political, unfounded, and simply not a basis for food labeling. They don’t offer
choice or information, but only mislead the consumer with a label insinuating a
difference in product or a potential health concern that does not exist.
The “GE” label is not the guarantee people are looking for
Despite the lack of safety concerns, due to the pressure from the public and
the sway of politics, many countries have adopted food-labeling policies. But if a
product contains a GE marker (referring to the rDNA approach as mentioned
previously) below a certain threshold, the food does not need to be labeled. The
European Union (EU) requires labels on food with GE markers above 0.9% (Christen
2003). Though below the threshold, 100% of Siberian processed meat contains GE
soybean within 0.9% threshold limit, and thus is not labeled (Taski-Ajdukovic, et al

4. 2009). In Hungary, an unlabeled 38% of examined foods contained GE ingredients
and 6% were above 0.9% (Ujhelyi, et al 2008). Perfect control of the food chain, as
it applies to the segregation of food in order to guarantee purely non-GMO products,
is a costly and difficult endeavor, and is wholly its own topic to be covered
subsequently.
If the goal of the consumer is to know when they are consuming GE products,
or to avoid eating GE products altogether, the supposed labeling system cannot be
adequate. The system currently in place, where companies subject themselves to
voluntary certification of non-GE products or choose to certify their products as
organic, avoids misleading and is reliable. These are, in fact, the products and
choices these consumers are looking for.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF GE CROPS
Many consumers want their food labeled because they operate under the
assumption that genetic engineering has the potential to harm the environment.
The consumer is looking for the choice to not support companies that use GE
ingredients in order to discourage this production method, and thus positively
contribute to environmental protection. But this assumption couldn’t be farther
from the truth. Mark Lynas, an author on environmental issues and a self-
proclaimed former anti-GMO activist, had this to say about genetically engineered
crops:
“These crops can reduce the use of environmentally damaging
agrochemicals, and several have been developed by public-sector
organizations concerned with food security, the reduction of poverty,
and sustainability” (Lynas 2014).
The more we learn about genetic engineering, the more we see potential
benefits and positive environmental outcomes. If the label does succeed in
discouraging this production method, we are looking at a step backward in
sustainability, which is not an outcome that anyone is hoping for.
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION RECOURSE—CONSUMER COST

5. Food products change their labels all the time for marketing purposes. A GE
label shouldn’t cost much, right?
With terms like “frankenfoods”, it is likely that a company will do what it can
to keep their product under the threshold and avoid the label still. According to the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, this means a change in production
and distribution:
“If manufacturers choose to substitute GE ingredients with non-GE
ingredients to avoid labels, the cost impact of mandatory labeling
would be substantial and associated with new product formulation
and sourcing non-GE ingredients” (Chassy, et al 2014).
This would be relative to the cost of organic food production and distribution—a
cost that is passed on to consumer (Chassy et al 2014).
For those in favor of consumer choice, labels have the potential to reduce
choices. Essentially they could force organic food prices for the majority of foods
available, and limit what type of food is available because companies are forced to
find alternatives that meet this non-GE demand.
CONCLUSION: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF GMO’S
There will be an estimated 9.1 billion people to feed by the year 2050.
Current methods of production and restrictions on new technologies will prevent us
from meeting these demands (Marchant, et al 2013). By preserving this fear in a
label, we will prevent the replacement of old technologies with healthier and less
environmentally impacting ones, and also prevent potential solutions to hunger and
malnutrition. One such example is golden rice:
“It was developed to reduce vitamin A deficiency, which is estimated
to cause two million deaths annually, mainly in young children.
Golden rice is owned by an independent humanitarian board, not a
multinational company” (Lynas 2014).
Golden rice has not been commercialized. If a consumer feels that big names, like
Monsanto, impede on their food choices and “right to know”, the solution is not in a
label. Acceptance and increased commercialization of these products will reduce

6. production costs, and thus allow food like golden rice to be affordably developed
and distributed by these smaller entities and universities, increasing consumer
choices. When independent studies, humanitarian groups, and other private sectors
can get involved in this way, knowledge and awareness grows unhindered by large
companies’ bottom lines. The “right to know” will become “flourish and grow”.

7. References Cited:
Chassy B, Kalaitzandonakes N, Redick T. 2014. The Potential Impacts of Mandatory
Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States. Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology. IP (54): 1-16.
Christen K. 2003. EU sets GMO labeling, traceability rules. Environmental Science &
Technology. 37(17): 322A-322A.
Ganzel B. Farming 1970s to Today. Wessels Living History Farm [Internet]. 2009
[cited 2014 November 23]. Available at:
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/crops_14.html
Keeling PJ, Palmer JD. 2008. Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nature
Reviews Genetics 9(8): 605-618
Lemaux PG. 2008. Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of
the issues (part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology. 59: 771-812.
Lynas M. Some GMO Crops Are on the Same Side as Their Opponents. MIT
Technology Review [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2014 November 25]. Available at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522651/some-gmo-crops-are-on-
the-same-side-as-their-opponents/
Marchant G, Abbot L, Felsot A, Griffin R. 2013. Impact of the Precautionary Principle
on Feeding Current and Future Generations. Council for Agricultural Science
and Technology. IP (54): 1-20.
Taski-Ajdukovic K, Nikolic Z, Vujakovic M, Milosevic M, Ignjatov M, Petrovic D. 2009.
Detection of genetically modified organisms in processed meat products on
the Serbian food market. Meat Science. 81(1): 230-232
Ujhelyi G, Vajda B, Beki E, Neszlenyi K, Jakab J, Janosi A, Nemedi E, Gelencser E.
2008. Surveying the RR soy content of commercially available food products
in Hungary. Food Control. 19(10): 967-973.