Genetic modification especially in foods meant for human consumption, have long been an area of public concern. Within the Practices team, if one question could be voted the winner for most frequently asked question, it would be: “Is GM food labelling a human right?”. To further explore this topic, we have created an ensemble of personal reflections that describe how our learning processes have been influenced by the ethics of GMO labelling.
"At the level of the individual, it’s pretty simple: do my choices reflect my values, and am I ready to defend them for constructive discussion when they clash with my peers'?" — Patricia Balbon
A teammate posed a dilemma in the midst of discussing mandated food labels: how was I to reconcile having advocated for education while simultaneously stand to withhold details from grocery shoppers about food they are purchasing?
I believe empowering the public with knowledge is foundational to developing citizens who are adept with shaping their environment into a democratically defined good. And yet, I was preoccupied fretting over the damages that I still believe, with reason, could be incurred by implementing policies which require indication of whether foods are, or come from, genetically modified ingredients. A tool for fear-mongering the imperfectly informed into buying more expensive versions of fare that are named with trendy adjectives. Neither of these arguments—to facilitate enlightened choice, to avoid injuring helpful research and livelihoods through often under-justified disqualification of many foods — are invalid, so how could one develop their position here? They are competing principles, which make it unfailingly difficult to arrive at a judgement in a social justice issue. But perhaps we can try to reconcile both and arrive at a pragmatic course by avoiding certain violation of the former principal and address the risks of the latter — which are in fairness, hypothetical—through provisions: label food which have been genetically modified but regulate this display. It should be easy to find, in a standard, neutral marking that is immune to sensationalism, and afforded only by satisfactory adherence to a rigorous definition of what a GMO actually is.
To be sure, I hesitate to claim this way is best. There are other important arguments at play and I am humbled by the complexity of this issue at a political level. At the level of the individual, it’s pretty simple: do my choices reflect my values, and am I ready to defend them for constructive discussion when they clash with my peers'? It is not about a "right to know". It is about whether this demand for political change allows me to be better accountable as a citizen. CRISPieR is an advancement that will shake things up, and Human Practices in iGEM will ensure we are prepared to be involved in the conversation.
The following arguments rely on the assumption some facts and opinons are shared by the reader: GM-foods are safe to eat [insert link], a "good" reason to reject GM-foods are on the basis of: moral conflict; a belief that current consensus on environmental risks is still at an inappropriate level of certainty; and a belief that purchasing GM-foods is enabling an oppressive power structure.
"We use mandatory labels to alert us to possible health and safety risks, such as those that warn us of allergens in food or lead in products like fishing lures for example." — Adrian Van Dyk
I feel that labeling of GM foods is not a human right. We use mandatory labels to alert us to possible health and safety risks, such as those that warn us of allergens in food or lead in products like fishing lures for example. I think that a mandatory label would not serve to educate the average consumer, but would instead frighten them. Since GM food and products are considered safe, then I don't think mandatory labeling would serve the consumer, and would just be extra information that would likely be misinterpreted. I do however believe that people should have as much choice as possible with the food they eat. I am glad that food can be optionally labeled as GMO-free. Companies which specialise in non-GM foods fill the need for people who wary of certain technologies to avoid it. These people pay a higher price which reflect the decreased yield from producing the food, as well as the specialty nature of non-GM food, without affecting other consumers.
"Throughout this iGEM experience I was taught about how genetic modifications could actually help the environment through pest control and disease resistance and were safe to eat." - Tatiana Portelli-Graham
The phrase GMO scares a lot of people, including myself before my own iGEM journey. However, while on the team and exploring gene editing in plants and food I found that genetic modifications can be extremely beneficial to our community. Our survey showed results that most people believe that their own knowledge of GMOs is average (ranging between 2 and 3, on a 1-4 scale) and that about 33% of people disagreed with sale of GM foods mainly because of environmental and safety reasons, which are the same reasons that I disagreed with the use of GMOs. Throughout this iGEM experience I was taught about how genetic modifications could actually help the environment through pest control and disease resistance and were safe to eat. It was my own scientific illiteracy that made me less aware of the benefits of GMOs and I now agree that genetic modifications to foods can be good for society. Yet I also believe that the government should form laws to have GM foods labeled for consumers. I believe that people should still have the choice to buy genetically modified or non-genetically modified foods. However, if the law is to label genetically modified foods I believe that the government should inform the public more, including in school programs, about GMOs and their effects. By enforcing a modern education program on genetic modifications the government would limit the restrictions that science illiteracy would impose on individuals.