Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?# WaterWorld - 未名水世界
w*l
1 楼
Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o
If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s —
genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain
more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar beets.
And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing
salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but
probably not the last — may not be far behind.
It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.
D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods
containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’
t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels
with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s
another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them.
Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E.
crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that
policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9
percent G.M.O.’s must be labeled.
G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and
herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may
be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and
advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may
achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is
more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor
. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some,
at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s
needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better
distribution system and a reduction of waste.)
To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their
potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of
antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As
far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.) But there has been
cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been
genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn,
the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates
organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic; if a G.E. salmon egg is
fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and
breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.
This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a
biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their
judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in
material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they
should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)
Related
What Do You Think About G.M.O. Foods?
In his blog, Mark Bittman is asking readers what they think of genetically
engineered foods.
Visit the blog »
But the testing process is suspect: the F.D.A. relied on data submitted by
AquaBounty (that data is for fish raised in Prince Edward Island, even
though the company plans to raise the fish in Panama, which is possibly
illegal).
Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a “new animal drug
” which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is
composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say,
fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech
industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the
last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods,
was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of
consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of
organic food and now even congressmen — last week, a bill was introduced to
ban G.E. salmon — believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias
towards the industry.
Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A
. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the
damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to
suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown,
since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of
organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be
called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol
corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S
.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on
the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could
you at least pretend to be consistent?)
The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists
working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about
gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans
believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy
them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don
’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.
In the long run, genetic engineering may prove to be useful. Or not. The
science is adolescent at best; not even its strongest advocates can
guarantee that there aren’t hidden dangers. So consumers are understandably
cautious, and whether that’s justified or paranoid, it would seem we have
a right to know as much as Europeans do.
Even more than questionable approvals, it’s the unwillingness to label
these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without
distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is
clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that
consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which
may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it?
A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.’s, and there’s little
reason to think more isn’t on the way. It seems our “regulators” are
using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding
conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter
whatsoever.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o
If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s —
genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain
more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar beets.
And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing
salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but
probably not the last — may not be far behind.
It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.
D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods
containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’
t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels
with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s
another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them.
Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E.
crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that
policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9
percent G.M.O.’s must be labeled.
G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and
herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may
be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and
advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may
achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is
more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor
. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some,
at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s
needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better
distribution system and a reduction of waste.)
To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their
potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of
antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As
far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.) But there has been
cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been
genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn,
the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates
organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic; if a G.E. salmon egg is
fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and
breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.
This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a
biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their
judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in
material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they
should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)
Related
What Do You Think About G.M.O. Foods?
In his blog, Mark Bittman is asking readers what they think of genetically
engineered foods.
Visit the blog »
But the testing process is suspect: the F.D.A. relied on data submitted by
AquaBounty (that data is for fish raised in Prince Edward Island, even
though the company plans to raise the fish in Panama, which is possibly
illegal).
Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a “new animal drug
” which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is
composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say,
fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech
industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the
last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods,
was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of
consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of
organic food and now even congressmen — last week, a bill was introduced to
ban G.E. salmon — believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias
towards the industry.
Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A
. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the
damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to
suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown,
since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of
organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be
called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol
corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S
.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on
the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could
you at least pretend to be consistent?)
The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists
working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about
gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans
believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy
them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don
’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.
In the long run, genetic engineering may prove to be useful. Or not. The
science is adolescent at best; not even its strongest advocates can
guarantee that there aren’t hidden dangers. So consumers are understandably
cautious, and whether that’s justified or paranoid, it would seem we have
a right to know as much as Europeans do.
Even more than questionable approvals, it’s the unwillingness to label
these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without
distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is
clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that
consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which
may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it?
A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.’s, and there’s little
reason to think more isn’t on the way. It seems our “regulators” are
using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding
conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter
whatsoever.