There has been a lot of controversy over GMOs lately. Just last week Whole Foods announced that by 2018 all of the foods in their store would be either non-GMO or labeled. Some may think this is great, however there are many problems. The controversy is rooted in the thought of differences with GMOs. The goal and reasoning behind GMOs is to increase efficiency with production and provide a more uniform product. There really are no studies that give health advantages or disadvantages to either traditional foods or GM foods. There are studies however that give production advantages to GM foods. The increase in ability to improve the efficiency in producing these foods, allows farmers to produce the same amount of product on much less. Decreasing the amount inputs ultimately helps reduce the strain on the environment.
Additionally, there has been much concern over the labeling of genetically modified foods or organisms [GMOs]. Just last year, in California, there was a proposition to require labeling of genetically modified foods. As explained above, the lack of differences for either side presents a compelling argument for the need to label the supposed difference. Many will agree, the connotation of labeling GMOs is negative. Labeling these can be likened to labeling meat as having come from animals killed for their muscle. The thought, gruesome, but is the reality. Labeling GMOs does not make the product any different just changes the thoughts associated. I challenge each and every one of you to evaluate the reasons behind labeling GMOs and then think about the unintended consequences behind adding negative connotation to a product that is no different than others to either side in the grocery store.
Until Next Time, Go BEEF,