GMO labeling presents a cultural discussion

Experts debated the implications of labeling genetically modified food products Monday night in Bryan Hall.

Co-sponsored by the Foley Institute and the School of Politics, the panel of experts in the fields of agriculture, molecular plant sciences, and the interest of Washington farmers discussed the ethics and consequences of labeling genetically engineered agricultural products.

Much of the debate surrounding any type of food labeling is cultural, rather than health-centered, said Paul Thompson, W.K. Kellogg chair and professor of agriculture, food, and community ethics at Michigan State University.

“There are a lot of cultural reasons why we structure our labeling system the way we do,” Thompson said, giving the labeling of kosher foods as an example.

Michael Neff, associate professor and director of the Molecular Plant Sciences Graduate program at WSU said GMOs are crops that have been cultivated to express new traits through genetic engineering.

Neff explained there are two ways to insert the DNA of one organism into another.

One way includes a process of first putting the DNA into particular bacteria, and then inserting those bacteria into an organism. The other process uses a gene-gun to shoot particles of gold with a DNA coating on them into the organism, Neff said.

“To put it simply, it’s copy and pasting genes,” he said.

Much of the discussion focused around the controversy of Initiative 522, which would require all genetically engineered food products in Washington to be labeled.

Chuck Benbrook, research professor and program leader at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at WSU, brought up concerns regarding potential health risks with the long-term GMO use in the future.

“In this early period of this technology, where there are still not a lot of answers, many people feel that it would be prudent to label these products,” Benbrook said.

If a contamination were to occur with a strain of genetically engineered agriculture, it would be much easier to detect and handle if the genetically modified food was labeled, he said.

Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, said many of the issues of Initiative-522, requiring labels on GMOs in Washington state, lie within the initiative itself, calling the legislation inconsistent and inaccurate.

“The proponents have written a very flawed initiative that will not require proper information to consumers,” Hansen said.

She said costs of the food industry will also increase with the labels. This is due to the need for separate production and transportation methods for GMO and non-GMO foods, the importation and labeling of products produced outside Washington, and the remaking of food that might occur in some companies.

“Food companies will remake their foods before they re-label, to keep their brand integrity,” Hansen said.

Graduate student Bethany Wolters, is working toward a master of science in soil science, and said she would be interested in researching the topic more after attending the event.

“It’s a good idea, but I’m concerned that it could put a lot of liability on farmers,” Wolters said. “It could also benefit organic agriculture, which is what I’m involved in.”

She added that it might have been more beneficial if the event had been held in an environment with larger public access, allowing more students and community members to participate in discussion.

With the rapidly increasing technology around GMOs, Benbrook said there are more issues surrounding genetically engineered agriculture than just the labeling, including testing and environmental concerns.

“The industry needs to come to a consensus on how to use this technology,” Benbrook said.

Thompson said the issue has a vast amount of complexity, with a lot of unknowns, and a constantly-changing standard of labeling.

“The industry is promising, but social institutions should be in place to allow people to continue to make changes regarding the use of the technology,” Thompson said.