As defined on the Just Label It website, here are definitions for GMO and GE:
"Genetically Engineered Foods”, “Genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs, are organisms that have been created through application of transgenic, gene-splicing techniques that are part of biotechnology. These transgenic methods for moving genes around are also called “genetic engineering,” or GE.”
"In my house, we buy a good deal of local food at the Saratoga Farmers’ Market, supplemented by store purchases of both organic and non-organic items. Plenty of organic produce, grains, beans, and protein sources are in my kitchen in their pure form. However, the “snack cupboard,” which houses cereal, crackers, chips, and granola bars, holds foods with diverse heritage: homemade granola with organic oats sits near “Big Food Company” non-organic granola bars, which most likely contain GMO ingredients given the inclusion of canola oil, yellow corn flour, and soy flour. (Further, canola and/or soybean oils are present in all sorts of pantry items.)
"Yes, my general preference for mostly organic, whole food, or at least minimally processed food, is sometimes trumped by the need to grab a product quickly, maybe even one that’s on sale, as I zip down an aisle at the grocery store. That’s how GMO ingredients, which are not labeled as such on my processed food purchases, likely sneak into my family’s diet.
"If you are keen to avoid GMO ingredients, one resource that can help with choosing products on shopping trips is the Non-GMO Project’s list of verified products without GMOs.
What else can help us learn more about the GMO issue? Here are a few of the resources I’ve reviewed:
Whole Foods made the news earlier this month when it announced it would require labels regarding GMOs on all food it sells by 2018. A few days later, this editorial appeared in The New York Times, questioning the need for comprehensive labeling policies. Then, Stonyfield yogurt co-founder and chairman Gary Hirshberg, who is also the chairman of Just Label It, countered with a letter noting the tremendous consumer support for GMO labeling (92% of Americans in favor), and the fact that 62 other countries around the world already require it.
Going back in time a bit to 2012, and the battle over the Proposition 37 labeling initiative in California, the foggy reality of the GMO industry and the potential pitfalls for agriculture were covered in this October 2012 article by Tom Laskawy for Grist in GMOs, pesticides, and the new scientific deadlock.
Writing last fall for Mother Jones, Tom Philpott exposes the risk to the big food and chemical companies if Proposition 37 in California were to have passed in Could Prop. 37 Kill Monsanto's GM Seeds? After the election, when Proposition 37 had been defeated, Philpott wroteDid California Voters Defeat the Food Movement Along With Prop. 37?
The June 2012 report GMO Myths and Truths reviews the evidence in scientific studies related to GMOs, and concludes, “… there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.”
If you’d like to read a different perspective, In Defense of Genetically Modified Crops in Mother Jones (June 2012) notes that sometimes there are benefits to having GE crops in the vicinity of non-GE crops, and some GE crops can cut down on insecticide use. In the article I cited at the top of this post, opinions on possible GMO and GE benefits were held by the head of the Washington County Farm Bureau and a Cornell University expert on genetic engineering.
Food for thought, indeed.
