Recent developments in food marketing reinforce the notion that Washington voters were correct to reject a GMO-labeling ballot measure in 2013.
Initiative 522, which would have required a conspicuous label on the front of packaging when a product contained genetically modified organisms, was rejected by 51 percent of voters. Now, market forces are driving efforts that cater to consumers who would prefer to avoid such organisms in their food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to begin verifying companies’ claims of GMO-free products if the company wishes to pay for such verification; Similac, a major producer of baby formula, is developing non-GMO versions of top-selling products; and Chipotle restaurants and others are moving toward GMO-free menus.
None of these developments, it must be noted, answer the question about whether consumers should be concerned about modified organisms in the food chain, and the anti-GMO movement actually could be damaging to food production. As Reason magazine caustically declared in a headline last month, “By Feeding Bogus GMO Fears, Chipotle Treats Customers Like Idiots.” Genetically modified crops have been engineered to be more resistant to insects and disease, require fewer insecticides, and require less land to grow the same amount of crops.
In short, modified crops are an important tool for ensuring a reliable food supply, particularly in poor nations where food insecurity is common. For one example, as reported by Metro.us, molecular biology journal EMBO Reports noted that vitamin A deficiency causes 500,000 cases of blindness and 6,000 child deaths annually around the world, “yet distribution of GMO rice enriched with beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, have been blocked by what the journal calls ‘overly cautious regulations.’ “