Window is closing on ability to require labeling of GMOs

With increasing fervor, citizens across the state are speaking out against genetically modified food (GMO) and demanding legislation that, at the least, requires labeling of these products. Multinational agribusiness has a great deal at stake and has invested heavily across the country to defeat these bills. Previously, this column covered the failed attempt to pass legislation in California after agribusiness outspent proponents of GMO labeling $40 million to $7 million.

In 2013 there have been more measures to label or ban GMOs in Hawaii than ever before, in both the House and Senate. From a political standpoint, the new organizing majority in the House seems to be in favor of passing these measures. In the Senate, only one GMO labeling measure is still alive.

Lobbyists who are paid handsomely to fight bills requiring labeling of GMO foods pre­sent three primary arguments:

1. GMO crops have undergone extensive scientific research and are found to be safe, so labeling is unnecessary.

Counterpoint: A couple of decades of GMO research is simply not enough to determine the immediate and long-term effects of this new science on what nature, in its wisdom, created over millennia. The potential impact of GMO foods on the health of consumers and on the environment is still unknown. It is still too soon for scientists to assess the health impact that GMO foods will have. It took years to determine that smoking does indeed cause cancer and that sugar has a direct correlation to diabetes. People who don’t want to gamble would like the option to opt out of the "guinea pig" phase.

2. Labeling of GMO foods is so expensive that it will drive up food costs and threaten farmers, manufacturers and retailers.

Counterpoint: If food labels must already describe salt and sugar content, it is unreasonable that adding "Contains GMO ingredients" would be prohibitively expensive.

3. GMO crops that are resistant to pesticides reduce the need to spray poisonous chemicals and help ensure an adequate food supply.

Counterpoint: World hunger is still a greater global problem than obesity, but any expansion of the food supply must ensure not only equitable distribution, but also that the food is grown using methods that are both safe and sustainable.

The window is closing on the ability to secure meaningful legislation. If agribusiness can stave off bills that require GMO labeling now, it will soon become impossible to conduct research on either its direct or far-reaching effects. We will have no way of tracking who ate what.

Why don’t proponents of GMO, who spend millions to stop labeling laws, instead spend some of their dollars to proudly post signage that says "GMO foods sold here"? If there were "GMO only" sections at the store, in the same way there are "organic" and non­glu­ten sections, would you be prone to purchase those items? Several restaurants in town write on the menu, "Always local and organic when possible." I find that reassuring and like spending my money at establishments that walk their talk. I’ve yet to see a menu that boasts, "Always from the mainland, GMO when possible."

If food is genetically modified, I want to know about it. As a physician, I don’t believe we have enough scientific, long-term evidence to ensure that those foods are not in any way harmful to the human body or to the environment. When asked, I routinely advise my patients against eating GMO foods and strongly recommend that if they are going to eat nonorganic foods, they do a thorough washing to remove the residue from pesticides that have been sprayed on the plants.

Label it. It’s the right thing to do.

———

Ira Zunin, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., is medical director of Manakai o Malama Integrative Healthcare Group and Rehabilitation Center and CEO of Global Advisory Services Inc. Please submit your questions to info@manakaiomalama.com.