The recently introduced Senate Bill 2279 mandating genetically modified foods (GMO) labeling for fruits and vegetables grown or sold in Hawaii serves as an introductory dialog on a relevant, yet complicated, matter. Historically, there has been consistent protest of GMOs, yet myths are often perpetuated and many of the benefits of these products are often overlooked. In an effort to more appropriately balance this topic, there are other factors that must be acknowledged by those for, or against, this technology.
The molecular techniques behind creating GMO organisms require solid technical and conceptual understanding of both an organism and gene transfer in order to properly design, target and succeed in introducing foreign genetic material. Moreover, exhaustive studies are done both in the lab and the field in order to monitor the desired results. Contrary to media and popular opinion, this work is done by a range of properly (and ethically) trained specialists that have utilized gene therapy in both plants and animals (such as humans).
It is true that roughly 80-90 percent of everyday products such as cotton, canola oil, corn (sugar) and soy (protein) in the U.S. are derived from GMOs. Despite how pervasive this trend has been, in the last 20 years there have only been a few isolated cases (in which the GMO was then removed from the market) of minimal human risk found. To date, no definitive studies have any found correlations of GMO risks with the widespread, and continual, exposure we have to these products. In spite of this fact, many still rely on unsubstantiated anecdotes and online stories.
Everyday consumers are most commonly exposed to GMOs in processed foods, yet SB 2279 focuses only on whole foods grown and sold locally. In addition, this bill fails to recognize that GMOs may actually serve a purpose in preserving the presence of certain foods in the market, papayas being one such example, which most likely would not be available if not for creating GMO varieties.
GMOs also help to protect the environment from more drastic treatments that have been shown to actually result in a loss of flora and fauna diversity. For example, most GMOs are created to limit damage from competing weeds and insects/pests, a consequence of which actually allows farmers to use less natural and synthetic (both may be potentially dangerous) herbicides and pesticides on the environment.
Proper labeling of foods for: known origination, carcinogens, true environmental costs of crop manufacture, correlations with diabetes and/or heart disease, and the presence of GMO material may be a good idea. Moreover, it may even be wise for the consumer to know the extent of fecal and drug-resistant bacteria that are found on cuts of meat (and produce) brought into their kitchens. However, without concomitant proper education of the public, these statements may simply serve to further ideological platforms without truly addressing the current state of food manufacturing in the United States.
For example, we currently have foods that are labeled GMO-free, albeit stamped with the "organic" logo. Yet, because organic foods often lack common commercial pesticide and microbial cleaning, they may also pose a risk in terms of human health (from contaminating E. coli, Salmonella, local rat-lung worm, etc.).
Really, the GMO debate is a complicated issue that cannot be reduced to a "good vs. bad" equation; the natural world is not that simple. For example, many natural compounds/extracts are used in the biomedical community to treat cancer (by inducing human cell death), yet many other natural compounds are used to promote and/or initiate cancers in research models such as mice.
