Moving Beyond The Debate
Image Source: i3.pureformulas.net
The unfortunate consequence of all this lack of clarity is that in an effort to meet the consumer’s demand for non-GMO foods, companies are changing their products to market them as such, but in a superficial way. So sure, you can happily buy that “non-GMO” quinoa, except quinoa has never been genetically modified in the first place, so you are just paying more for a label.
As a result, perhaps transparency is the key to this controversy. Not only do both sides of the debate as well as the USDA and the FDA need to clearly understand and outline the definition of what it means to be a GMO food, but consumers should also have the right to know what goes into their food. Transparency may mean an open dialogue between corporations, regulators, and the public to ensure that rational concerns are alleviated. And transparency would most likely mean GMO labeling.
But, it should be clear that labeling is not a solution to the debate. Food corporations are famous for their creative interpretations of marketing terms (think “all natural” and “real”) and in the end, science has yet to prove there is any health risk associated with GMOs.
While perhaps not a solution, labeling could hopefully provide the foundation for a larger conversation concerning the relationships between us, the environment, and the scientific advancement of agriculture. Ultimately, whether you’re scientifically savvy or not, people have the right to know what is in their food and, to be honest, I can’t imagine that labeling will have the jarring impact the food industry fears. Chemical preservatives, like added nitrates, are proven to cause extreme health problems, but Americans still love their hotdogs–the Wienermobile will remain a national guilty pleasure.
Image Source: cdn.foodbeast.com
