Letter to (Un)Scientific American

Scientific American magazine has just come out against GMO labels:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea” (The Editors, September 1, 2013) reads like talking points from the pesticide industry.

Genetic engineering is fundamentally different than traditional breeding because it mixes genes between organisms (like bacteria and corn) that would never breed in nature. Pesticide use has skyrocketed with GE crops, because most are herbicide-resistant varieties that promote more spraying of the weed-killers that comprise two-thirds of U.S. pesticide use as well as rapid evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.  GE crops do not boost yields and do not feed the poor.  GE cotton has not increased yields in India. GE crops do not reduce water use. Most GE crops are corn and soybeans grown by farmers to feed animals and fuel cars in rich countries.  

Labeling will not cost consumers $400 per year. A study by the non-biased Emory University argues the costs are negligible. The discussion of safety is simply a red herring. We don’t label foods that are proven unsafe, we remove them from markets. Labels provide consumers with information and a choice. In light of the adverse impacts noted above and lack of consumer benefit, Europeans have utilized labels to make a rational choice against GE foods and the unsustainable practices that produce them.  

This is not “scientific advancement versus luddites.”  It’s about pulling back the curtain on a biotech industry that makes billions selling patented seeds and chemicals but have delivered on none of their promised benefits.

Bill Freese
Science Policy Analyst, Center for Food Safety