The editorial page of The New York Times - one of the most influential in the country - says there is no reason to require mandatory labeling of food products with genetically engineered ingredients. 

“There is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers,” the paper pointed out in an editorial published Friday (March 15, 2013) and available here: http://nyti.ms/ZU7FQz. “The Food and Drug Administration says it has no basis for concluding that foods developed by bioengineering techniques present different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”

The Times agreed that consumers have a right to know what is in their food, but noted:

“Consumers can already find products free of genetically engineered ingredients, with labels voluntarily placed by the manufacturers,” “For those who want to avoid such ingredients, the surest way is to buy products certified as ‘organic’ under federal standards. They contain no genetically engineered ingredients, or at most inadvertent trace amounts.” Read more.

Whole Foods got some attention today with an announcement that it will require the makers of food products sold in its stores to state on the label if a product contains an ingredient produced through agricultural biotechnology - a “GMO.” It is giving manufacturers five years, until 2018, to provide the labels.

But the facts don’t support Whole Foods’ new policy. It’s just commercial positioning rather than a scientifically-based initiative.

Leading scientific authorities, including the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academies of Science, and the World Health Organization, agree that foods derived from biotechnology are as safe and nutritious as food manufactured from organic and conventional ingredients.

All methods of agricultural production — biotech, conventional and organic — use inputs to fertilize plants and control weeds and insects. Voluntary labeling of foods that is consistent with the production method used is already available.

Mandatory labeling, however, applies only to information regarding nutritional content or health-related characteristics, such as allergenicity or toxicity, which are not issues that have ever been associated with biotech ingredients.

Labeling of “GMO’s” is thus not necessary for health and safety.  It’s just part of the differentiation strategy in a particular segment of the retail industry.

“Often lost in the debate about GMOs is the need for poor farmers to have choices in the face of hard conditions.”

With those words, the world’s greatest philanthropist and one of its richest men, Bill Gates, reminded his more than 10 million Twitter followers that using agricultural biotechnology is a choice that poor farmers around the world should be able to make. It’s a choice that some countries have chosen to deny to their farmers, unfortunately for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

Gates was calling attention to an article on the Gates Foundation blog by Sam Dryden, director of the foundation’s agricultural development team. A native of Kentucky, Dryden has worked all over the world and now oversees effort to help millions of the world’s poorest farming families raise their productivity and incomes.

“What is so often missed in the debate about GMOs is choice,” Dryden pointed out. “The choice for a poor farmer to consider planting a maize crop which could cope with droughts that are becoming ever more frequent; the choice to grow rice that provides the nutrition her child needs to prevent blindness; or put simply, a choice that we in the West take for granted.”

Giving farmers access to solutions that deliver more productive or more nutritious crops should be a “decision based on scientific debate and research” and subject to approval by national regulatory bodies, he wrote.

“Once proven (and so far, GMOs have been proven safe and effective), the use of these tools must be a choice for farmers to make,” he wrote. “And farmers are choosing GMOs in their millions: GMO crops are the fastest growing technology (in the U.S., in Brazil, in India, Argentina) - because when farmers have access to more productive, less resource-intensive crops, they seize the opportunity.”

Dryden also noted that 90% of the cotton crop in Indian is genetically modified. The 19 million acres of GM cotton in India were planted by six million farmers - meaning that the average GM cotton farm in India comprises only about three acres. These varieties require much less spraying of insecticide, he notes. It is “the farmers themselves who are seeing the benefits of all the tools in the box,” Dryden wrote. Read more.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from representatives on behalf Monsanto Co. and Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman, to determine whether Mr. Bowman had violated the company’s patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to the weed-killer glyphosate (RoundUp). This case goes to the core of the ability of U.S. companies to invest in the research necessary to develop new products with an assurance that U.S. patent law will protect their investment. “Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts asked during oral arguments before the court.

Experts and observers have noted that the impact of the Court’s ruling will extend beyond the agricultural biotechnology sector:

The justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling not only for Monsanto’s very lucrative soybean patents but also for modern agriculture generally and for areas as varied as vaccines, cell lines and software.

The New York Times, Feb. 19, 2013

“The case revolves around what appears to be a deliberate attempt by one farmer to circumvent the law. Bowman v Monsanto is the long-anticipated square off between a 75-year old Indiana farmer and the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology firm. The decision will turn on the minutiae of patent law, but the implications will extend to all cutting-edge technologies.”

Jon Entine, Executive Director, Genetic Literacy Project

“…Innovators, whether they are in a scientific laboratory or a recording studio, must count on being able to recoup their risky investments without the threat of illegal copies. Whether those copies are crops on a farm in the Midwest or hot DVDs on the sidewalks of New York City, the principle is the same, and so are the consequences: When one free rider skims off the top, everyone else ends up paying more, and innovators get less to invest in the next round of innovation. Neither of these outcomes is what America needs.”

Robert Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

To read more, check out Supremes unsympathetic to farmer’s deception at center of Monsanto GMO soybean SCOTUS patent challenge and  The Supreme Court is about to shape the future of innovation.

Some people claim that genetic modification, as it is practiced in agriculture today, produces plants that are substantially different from plants that were produced by conventional breeding. Biotech supporters say the technique is precise and limited, so the resulting plants are no different except for the targeted changes (such as insect resistance). Now a thorough review of the scientific literature shows that biotech indeed works as intended. “Suspect unintended compositional effects that could be caused by genetic modification have not materialized,” the authors say. Read more.