by Caitlin Pixley
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasingly becoming a dominant component of our overall food supply, and most New Yorkers are unaware of what is really in the processed products they eat every day or the risks these foods present to public health and the environment.
Eighty-eight percent of the corn (maize) and 94 percent of soy grown in the United States are genetically modified, but you would never know it by visiting a grocery store or reading the ingredient list on a food container. For the sake of public education, it is the perfect time for New York to move ahead with a food-labeling program specifically targeting GMOs.
GMOs are plants or animals created through the manipulation of an organism’s DNA, merging DNA from different species that cannot occur in nature. This engineering changes the characteristics of the organisms as they develop.
While GMOs may have been originally developed to increase crop yields and reduce pesticide use, a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that GMO crops are contributing to a host of environmental and human health issues:
• They can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than natural crops. While proponents of GMO crops have claimed that genetic engineering allows for more nutritious crops, the fact remains that non-GMO foods continue to provide the best form of nutrients for consumers. Examples include: GMO soy has 12-14% lower levels of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soy; experimental GMO rice varieties had many nutritional discrepancies from the non-GMO rice, resulting in highly altered nutritional content—variation ranging from 20 to 74% for amino acids, 19 to 38% for fatty acids, 25% for protein, and 25 to 57% for vitamins.
• GMO crops can create serious problems for farmers—including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds.” Many crops are designed to resist powerful herbicides, so that yields can increase while a chemical application kills unwanted vegetation. But the weeds the herbicides were designed to target evolve and adapt, resulting in herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” and forcing farmers to spray a more toxic blend of herbicides, further contaminating GMO crops and the surrounding environment.
Also, the genes from the GMO crops can mix with non-GMO crops/plants, affecting neighboring farmers who wish to produce only non-GMO goods. There have been cases where companies who own the GMO patents (Monsanto and Dupont, for example) have sued farmers whose non-GMO crops have cross-pollinated with neighboring GMO crops. The companies claim these farmers have to pay to use their seeds—even in the case of unintended cross-pollination. This also means that these farmers are then forced to continue growing GMO crops, as it is difficult to remove all of the GMO seeds from the soil, year after year.
• GMO crops disrupt ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and are often just as energy-intensive as other chemically-farmed crops. As stated before, because of the unintended consequences of “superweeds,” GMO crops can often require more herbicides than non-GMO crops, and large amounts of fossil fuels are required to manufacture these herbicides. Organic farms use 63% of the energy required by non-organic farms, in large part because they eliminate the energy required to produce nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides. Another alternative to chemical fertilizers is compost—with increased yield percentages and crops that are better resistant to pests, and with fewer weeds to maintain.
The long-term effects of genetically engineered foods are still not fully understood because gene manipulation is relatively new. Establishing correlation with human health impacts may also take decades to establish. Foods produced from or containing GMOs may contain new substances, or have purposeful or inadvertent compositional changes, all of which have the potential to cause a variety of health problems.
This past year, states such as Connecticut and Maine passed laws requiring foods containing GMOs to be labeled as such. However, there are a few caveats to these pieces of legislation. Before the laws go into effect, four other states must pass similar legislation—in Connecticut’s case, it must include one state with which it shares a border. Also, a combination of Northeastern states with a cumulative population of more than 20 million residents must pass a similar labeling bill. The fight in New York requiring labeling will have eyes watching from around the Northeast and beyond in the upcoming 2014 legislative session.
The push for labeling extends beyond the Northeast. In California, a voter referendum failed in November, 2012 (Prop 27). In Washington state, the voters will decide the state’s GMO labeling future when they head to the polls in November. Monsanto and DuPont, two of the largest GMO producers, have dumped millions into fighting against labeling, recently spending $8.2 million to defeat GMO labeling in Washington state.
In New York, A.3525-A (Rosenthal)/S.3835-A (LaValle) would require the labeling of foods or food products that contain GMOs. The legislation would provide New Yorkers with the information required to make informed decisions when at the supermarket and when choosing food products for their families. With an increased awareness about the issues associated with GMOs, now more than ever is the time for New York to mandate GMO labeling on the foods we consume every day.
For more information on GMOs and/or to get involved in the push for mandatory GMO labeling in New York, contact Erin Riddle, chair of the Farm and Food Committee of the Atlantic Chapter (erin.riddle@sierraclub.org).
Caitlin Pixley is the Atlantic Chapter Conservation Associate. You can reach her at caitlin.pixley@sierraclub.org, or 518-426-9144. She submitted testimony, on behalf of the Atlantic Chapter, to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection at a public hearing on A.3525-A in July.