COLUMN: GMOs should be labeled in foods
When companies like Monsanto spend $7.1 million so that consumers cannot tell if products they purchase contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), people tend to take notice.
Some are even comparing the big issue of labeling GMOs to the past battle with big tobacco giants.
On Nov. 6, California will vote to show the rest of the country what they think about labeling GMOs, and it will set the precedent for the rest of the country.
Currently, products containing GMOs are not labeled, and here I am not debating the safety ... or rather untested safety of these products, I am debating the lack of labeling for consumer choice.
America is one of the very few to not label GMOs. Around 50 other countries either restrict or ban GMOs. Russia, Brazil, India and China are among many others who require labeling. The U.S. and Canada are two of few industrialized countries to give into these large companies wishes of anonymous GMO usage.
Currently, 93 percent of all soy products in America are GMO, and the only way as it now stands to knowingly purchase non-GMO as a consumer is to buy organic. For some, this is not a feasible option.
Polls show that 90 percent of Americans want labeling so that they can choose. So why have similar propositions failed in 11 other states?
Money.
One reason is they don’t want to have to change, and companies are afraid consumers won’t want to buy their products if they see what it contains. So much so that companies like DuPont, PepsiCo, Dow Agroscience, Nestle, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Kellogg, General Mills, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, Hormel and Ocean Spray Cranberries spent (and continue to spend) millions of dollars against labeling.
Even brands most associated with being healthy such as Kashi and Silk are part of the force keeping GMOs unlabeled.
I polled more than 100 CMU students passing through the Park Library among other places, and the majority wanted GMOs labeled whether they agreed with or even understood them. They wanted that choice. Out of 108 students, 83 wanted labeling, four said no to labeling and 21 said they didn’t care.
Even if you are worried from a business aspect, it is in the essence of a capitalist business to give consumers what they want, and companies like Coca-Cola have been adapting for years. They originally had sugar, and then they started using high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in 1985, which is man-made in a laboratory. They used this in addition to sugar. They changed their product to suit the increasing (and addicted) sweet tooth of its consumers.
Now, many products like Sprite are reverting back to only sugar as many customers are wanting different products without HFC. How is this any different? If the companies want to serve their customers, and their customers don’t want GMOs, then it’s their job to go back to the drawing board and give a product that the customers do want, not hide what’s in it. We have the right to know and choose.
Another aspect of some of the GMO products is their tendency to be invasive. Monsanto is one of the large companies some people, especially farmers, are familiar with. Monsanto has been known to sue farmers when Monsanto’s GMO seed which contaminates the farmers crops, and then Monsanto says the farmers are breaching patent on life. They hold a patent on life. Even the environmental implications in this are cause enough to take notice. To top it off, companies like Monsanto are seeking less regulations.
So whether you agree or disagree with GMOs, don’t you want the right to know, and the right to choose which products you spend your money on?
