The article by Steve Holt seemed like a relevant article to read and blog about because of the upcoming elections where we will vote on measure 92, which if it passes would (hopefully) undo the damage discussed in the article. I feel strongly about this issue for the obvious reason of believing that consumers have a right to know what is in their food and where it comes from, but I also feel strongly about it because it is a perfect example of a big problem: corporate interests infiltrating politics.
It’s the law that food products label all ingredients used and show where the product was made on the package label. It makes no sense why GMO foods should be exempt from this requirement. This is especially relevant to genetically modified foods due to the fact that they are too new to our food system to know for sure what the health, environmental, and socio-political consequences may be. Although I am biased against GM foods, I have done a lot of academic research on the topic and have tried to be as unbiased as possible. My results still show that pollen from GM crops is devastatingly destructive to pollinators due to its nature of not being real pollen and containing properties that naturally occurring pollen particles would never have that happen to be toxic to pollinators’ digestive systems. Results are inconclusive as to how GM foods may affect human health, but tests done on rats have shown either no results or very destructive results to endocrine and nervous systems. Socio-political consequences are well documented, particularly the harm caused to farmers. Farmers that can’t compete with corporations like Monsanto are forced to work for Monsanto and they or neighboring farmers are often later sued when GM seeds (wind-blown) show up on their land because these seeds are patented by Monsanto. These reasons and so many others may not be enough to warrant a ban on GMO’s, but they should be enough to warrant a label, a right to know what one is consuming. The clear majority of developed nations already have strict rules regarding GM foods, ranging from labeling laws to bans.
The fact that laws have been passed and continue to be part of the larger political discussion moving to “protect” Monsanto and other biotech companies from disclosing information that consumers legally have a right to know is a perfect demonstration of corporate infiltration of politics. This is a fundamental problem in our political system right now and after the passing of the Citizen’s United ruling earlier this year it looks like it will continue to be a problem. Steve Holt’s article stated that Oregon democrats, while generally opposed to the protection act for Monsanto, voted for it to bargain for other measures that they wanted passed. I can’t fathom a political incentive to not label GMO’s except for the money rolling in to republicans straight from Monsanto. This proves to me that our democratic system, while having always been fundamentally flawed in the most basic ways, continues this year to take more steps away from true democracy because corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech.
As annoying as it admittedly has been to have people from Ospirg and wherever else bugging me left and right about donating to their cause of passing measure 92, I totally support what they are doing. It’s important to use what little democratic power we do have to let policy-makers and corporations know what we want and that we are aware of the political subtleties they try to slip past us.
Article Cited
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/10/04/oregon-passes-mini-monsanto-protection-act
I really appreciate the points that you hit in your response. When this bill came up for our recent election I was not exactly the platform I think is most pressing when it comes to GMO foods. I am up in the air about the potential harm that consuming GMO foods could cause. The data for potential consumption related problems just isn’t really out there yet. What I am sure about is that GMO crops are damaging to pollinators and contribute to continued unsustainable farming practices that are detrimental to the environment. The GMO foods you consume may not be directly harmful in themselves, but you can almost guarantee they have been sprayed liberally with pesticides and herbicides. I support GMO labeling because it keeps the conversation about this harmful agricultural practice in the foreground of public consciousness. To see the immense amount of money that got dumped into no on 92 ads in the weeks right before the election was such an obvious ploy on the part of Monsanto. For me it felt insulting. The measure failed. Once again money talks. I absolutely agree with you that corporate interests have infiltrated politics.
I think a reason why a lot of people will vote yes on 92 is their right to know. When the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 was signed into law, I’m sure there was a similar controversy and concern about the prices of food and how other aspects of food production might be impacted. This act made the FDA in charge of putting nutrition labels on FDA regulated food items. Have there been other food labeling controversies in past within the US? How were food labeling laws in other countries received? Did businesses have any impact on when/how those policies were made?
GMOs have become integrated into our food system in ways that we cannot even imagine. It is a scary thought to know that we are creating crops that can ultimately destroy preexisting food supplies. I did not previously know about the tests of GM foods on rats, but find the results completely terrifying. However; because this is a response I feel like I should play devil’s advocate a little bit. How does labeling GMOs stop the production of this destructive crop? Shouldn’t we be focusing our attention and finances on the agricultural processes that create these crops, rather than labeling the already-processed foods?