We believe that our rights to choose and rights to know are being impeded by opposition to the labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineering is not natural. Bioengineering (GMO) is intrinsically different than traditional breeding because bioengineered traits cannot be obtained through traditional breeding (1). Bioengineering is more targeted because only a few genes carrying known functions are inserted in the recipient genome, and it's more rapid because of the bypassing of the multiple cross generations needed by traditional breeding (2). In other words, plants are not meant to mate with animals. For an example of this concept in practice, read about a Kansas case involving human genes being spliced into grains of rice (3).

Despite an intensive campaign on the part of biotech companies to convince the public that there are no dangers to consuming GMOs, the results are NOT conclusive in support of the safety of genetically modified foods. In fact, advanced industrialized nations around the world are now banning the importation and cultivation of genetically modified produce precisely because GM technology has not been proven safe. There are even some studies that have suggested that GMO consumption could potentially be very dangerous to mammals (4)(5)(6). Most studies that have attempted to debunk any potential adverse health effects have been funded and facilitated by the very companies that stand to profit from the proliferation of GMOs. So, while individual positions on genetically modified foods may differ, these realities cannot be denied, and this issue must be observed with greater scrutiny.

There are many sound reasons for labeling foods containing genetically modified ingredients. For instance, this technology may be in conflict with many people's personal and religious convictions (9). Mating organisms together in a laboratory, which otherwise could not in nature (i.e. plants and animals), is unnatural and can be seen as tantamount to challenging God. Government mandated food labeling may sound overly interventionist and in conflict with Ohio values, but it would actually serve to fulfill one of the few necessary roles of a free and limited government, which is to protect citizens' religious freedoms.

Personal beliefs aside however, opposition to GMO labeling is opposition to the free market because resistance to consumer awareness of genetically modified foods only serves to benefit a few well-connected corporations to the detriment of consumers at large. In a truly free market, individuals have the ability to spend their money how they wish. Preventing GMO labeling only serves to inhibit the consumer’s ability to make sound spending decisions. If one believes in a free society, then they should support GMO labeling and allow the market to decide which competitors in the food industry will thrive and which will fail.

Some of those in opposition to the labeling of genetically modified foods will assert that it is unnecessary because there are already UDSA Certified Organic labeled foods available, but not all non-organic foods contain genetically modified ingredients. For many people, the higher costs and limited selection of USDA Certified Organic products make it difficult to purchase all of the products that they really want to consume (because of the costly and difficult bureaucratic process necessary for farmers to obtain organic certification by the federal government). Also, there is a fear that GMO labeling will hurt certain producers while benefitting others; but the market is unpredictable, and it is entirely possible that individuals who currently buy organic may actually buy from non-organic producers who have merely demonstrated that they don't use GM ingredients. Again, the market should be allowed to take its course at the behest of informed consumers.

There has also been concern by some regarding the fate of Ohio farmers because there are many in this state that use genetically modified seeds to plant their crops. The typical scenario postulated is that GMO labeling will make consumers averse to purchasing genetically modified food which will cut into some farmers’ bottom line. The question one must ask then is why farmers use genetically modified seed in the first place (10). The most commonly cited reason is for greater crop yields. However, a recent long-term study by the University of Iowa demonstrated that organic crops actually produce equal, if not superior yields to GMO crops after three years (a three year transitional period is required by the USDA before organic certification) (7). It is entirely possible that previously uninformed consumers will demand non-GMO products, and local farmers will have the opportunity to supply that demand. This may actually benefit farmers should they decide to become fully organic, as organic produce can be valued at nearly twice the amount of traditional, chemically treated crops (8). The most difficult time for converting farmers is throughout the three year transitional period in which crop yields are down during soil regeneration, and they cannot sell at organic prices. The solution to this problem may be in the labeling itself because GMO labeling will likely create an entirely new customer base that wants to avoid GMO labeled products but may not be interested in buying certified organic food. Thus, the transitional, non-GMO [non-organic] crops may see increased value from an entirely new market segment that lies in between casual shoppers and organic shoppers.

We are not asking for a ban of GMOs or even a label warning of potential health risks, only a disclaimer of what is truthfully in the food that we eat. We are simply asking for the ability as consumers in a free market to make sound decisions as we see fit.


Sources:
(1) What is the difference between genetic modification and traditional breeding?
(2) Traditional plant breeding vs genetic engineering prime​r
(3) Human genes engineered into experimental GMO rice being grown in Kansas
(4) Longest runing GMO safety study finds tumors in rats
(5) Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests
(6)* A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammilian health
(7) Study finds diverse non-GMO crop system reduces herbicides, enhances soils, increases yields
(8) Economic analysis reveals organic farming profitable long-term
(9) Roman Catholics join call to end GMOs
(10) Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest

*In the area of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, International Journal of Biological Sciences is ranked among the top 2.1% of journals (29/1380) according to SCImago in year 2007. In this area it is positioned above journals such as Journal of Molecular Evolution (30), Yeast (35), Cell Communication and Adhesion (54), Theoretical and Applied Genetics (58), Journal of Experimental Biology (78). In the area of Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, International Journal of Biological Sciences is also ranked very well, among the top 16.5% of journals (207/1257). This places it above many journals in the area such as FEBS Letters (209), BMC Molecular Biology (218), FEBS Journal (223), Gene (228), European Journal of Biochemistry (246), Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (266), Cell Division (286), Biology Direct (308), Pharmacogenomics Journal (310), Nature Protocols (321). In the area of Immunology and Microbiology, International Journal of Biological Sciences is also positioned well, among the top 16.4% of journals (49/299).








Also visit:  http://labelthetruth.org
​https://www.facebook.com/LabelTheTruth