Scientific American is in Favor of GMOs, and Against their Labeling--My Opinion

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/CommunitySupport/SustainableTimes/images/gmo_comic.htm

In their September 2013 issue, Scientific American published an article (see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea&page=2 ) formally presenting their stance on the production and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They posited that GMOs are a good thing for our food culture in North America, and that labeling of foods produced with genetically modified ingredients was unnecessary and superfluous.

In light of recent class discussions, I found myself considering the political ecology of GMOs and debating and developing my own personal opinions on GMO production and subsequent labeling. Since I grew up in a rural, agriculturally-based area I support the notion "No Farms, No Food". As an Environmental Studies major and nature lover I struggle with the use, overuse and even abuse of land for agricultural matters. It's an internal conflict, which calls into question many modern farming practices and techniques for me, GMOs being one of them.  

I began by considering a difference between GMOs and non-GMOs; it is a distinction which is quite often overlooked and misconstrued in our society. Non-GMO does not mean organic; non-GMOs are plants whose DNA has not been altered from its natural state. However, non-GMO crops may be sown and cultivated in a non-organic manner. 

With that said, certainly GMOs are beneficial to the economy. Scientific American (SA) states, "Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods--and for a questionable return."Because non-GMO and organic crops cost more, the audience they would be available to is severely limited. If we were to rely solely on non-GMO or organic crops for our food demands, impoverished populations may lose access to fresh produce, and (further through the system) processed goods whose production relies on GMO crops--an unwanted cultural consequence. Additionally, the total amount of food crops that are able to be harvested from a given area is greater with GMOs than non-GMOs, a benefit for national farmers. On an international level, GMOs hold the potential to increase the quality of life in many developing nations, even save thousands of lives (see SA's discussion of Golden Rice). To me, culturally and economically, GMOs seem the most logical solution--this is a position I have always maintained and still do after reading this and other articles online. 

But then we come to the environmental impacts of GMOs. I feel this aspect was greatly overlooked in SA's discussion of their position on GMO production. GMOs demand more from the land than has ever been asked before (even if just by sheer volume grown per unit area). Mismanaged farm practices and overworked land can lead to a slew of detrimental results (though, this is not specific to just GMO farms). Biodiversity can be lost (sometimes permanently), and there are unacknowledged and not fully understood impacts on non-human species that are dependent on these (now genetically modified) plants. But alas, our ever growing population can not be sustained without the use of GMOs (not without radically changing our land use) and so morally I feel as if we have a commitment to or obligation to use GMOs.

The issue of labeling is one I have not considered, or at least to a lesser extent. I was young when the EU began to require the labeling of GMOs (circa 1997), and only slightly older when companies began to remove labels in fear of driving consumers off (1999). I have always taken for granted the fact that the processed food I do eat contains GMOs--my upbringing raised me knowing where my food came from and what that food entailed. The fact that I ate GMOs never bothered me. It's only recently, since studying food and food systems in our country, that I realize not everyone is as familiar with their food's background. I have come to terms with the fact that GMO is a daunting and unknown term to some and that it entails questionable repercussions in their minds, even though it may be basic to me and my acceptance of the food I eat. I take issue though, with the fact that SA, a reputable publication, assumes a negative stance on GMO labeling. Though I may be a proponent of GMOs, I would not push my viewpoint on others I support them in their decision to or not to eat GMOs. I feel as though we have a fundamental right to know what we are eating and drinking, a right which cannot be lessened by a scientist justifying that, in fact, GMOs are suitable for our consumption. Like all matters of significance in life, I would argue that people should be well-informed on a topic before taking a derisive stance one way or the other--and our food consumption is no different. People should research GMOs before being scared off by a label, or similarly, accepting it wholeheartedly.

A thought provoking article that got me thinking. Thoughts?