Say Yes to Labeling: Let the Consumers Decide on GMOs

As if we needed another reason to love Chipotle, we just got another! Chipotle Mexican Grill has recently become one of the first major corporations to support Proposition 105 in Colorado. Being voted on in a few weeks, Propositon 105 “would require manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering” (ABC7, 2014). However, Chipotle’s support for this bill comes with no surprise. “With more than 1,700 restaurants worldwide, Chipotle is one of the bigger and more recognized brands to already voluntarily label GMO ingredients in its food” (ABC7, 2014).

            The high level of public support for Proposition 105 and labeling has stemmed from the great controversy raised in some areas regarding genetically modified (GM) food. A recent article published by Livestrong expressed the concerns that the safety of GM foods is uncertain, that chemical contamination is possible, and that environmental ramifications might occur (Kannal, 2014). The article explained that there is “no long-term data on how genetically modified foods affect human health,” that “the [GM] food you eat may contain traces of these toxic chemicals,” and that the spread of GM crops may make it harder to control noxious plants while decreasing biodiversity (Kannal, 2014).

            However, Chipotle’s support for labeling and the resistance against GM foods has not been universally shared. “The United States has invested heavily [into GM crops] to ensure global leadership in integrating biotechnology into agriculture” (Stone, 2010). The United States’ support for GM crops is due to the fact that these crops “bring new mechanisms to prevent seed replanting and for agricultural capital to benefit from public investment—particularly government-supported academic research” (Stone, 2010). In other words, GM crops serve to benefit the self-interest of the United States, so the United States has pledged its support.

            In addition to the praise raised by the government for GM crops, many corporations have also illustrated their support. Corporate support for GM crops has resulted in “industry-favored framings” that “naturaliz[e] GM crops” to make them seem as though they are as part of the long history of plant manipulation (Stone, 2010). This manipulative framing “is standard in histories of biotechnology from corporate media departments, showing a natural progression from grain domestication to genetic modification” (Stone, 2010). Typically, this narrative is also coupled with a “specter of famine,” depicting starving people, that can be resolved with the usage of GM crops (Stone, 2010).

Proponents of GM crops often illustrate the image of the technologies alleviating the hunger of starving people in developing nations; however, this image is misguided. It is true that the limited access to food in developing nations is a major international concern. In Africa, “high rates of population growth and little application of improved production technology during the past three decades have resulted in declining per capita food production, escalating food deficits, deteriorating nutritional levels among the rural poor, and devastating environmental degradation” (Borlaug, 2007). However, nearly the entire world’s “GM acres are planted to crops developed for industrial farming” (Stone, 2010). Even in developing nations GM acres largely consist of “cotton and soy,” and golden rice still has yet to make an appearance (Stone, 2010). Rather than serving its advertised purpose of improving the quantity of food production, GM crops have thus far been utilized primarily to benefit corporate interest.

Even with the knowledge of all the potential consequences of genetic modification, some individuals may still decide to consume GM foods, and that is their decision to make. However, without labeling of GM foods, opponents of genetic modifications cannot make the same decision. GM labeling is about providing consumers with the right to make informed decisions about what they are eating. A label is not a prohibition—it is a warning. Consumers should have the right to know about the truth about the food they are purchasing. Labeling provides consumers with that right, and is the first step towards easing the uncertainty on GMOs.

ABC7. (2014, October 14). Chipotle backs Colorado GMO label proposal; CEO: Prop 105

opponents put profits ahead of consumers.

Borlaug, Norman. 2007. “Feeding a Hungry World,” Science 318: 359.

Kannal, E. (2014, February 4). Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food. Livestrong.

Stone, D. G. (2010). The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. The Annual Review of

Anthropology, 39, 381-400.