Dr. Emil Q. Javier The controversy over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived from them continue to rage in spite the overwhelming consensus in the global science community that GMO products are no more risky (or as safe) as those derived from conventional genetic processes. Realizing that the effort to discredit GMOs on scientific grounds is not going anywhere the opposition, Greenpeace and the organic industry lobby in particular, have switched tactics. They are demanding that GMO products be labelled to scare consumers and thereby effectively shut out GMOs in the market place. Food labels are justified for two reasons. First, negatively, to alert consumers of risk i.e. possible presence of toxins, allergens and/or anti-nutrition factors. Second, positively, to inform consumers of the nutritive value and other desirable traits of the product. However, the value-added from most GMOs have nothing to do with nutrition e.g. resistance to insects and diseases, herbicide tolerance, rapid growth, drought and cold tolerance. Thus, mandatory labelling of GMOs imply a risk, even though the risk does not exist.  The exception of course is for GMOs specifically bred to enhance nutritive value e.g. golden rice which contains enhanced levels carotene (vitamin A), which is normally absent in the rice endosperm. Global Scientific Consensus on the Safety of GM Foods There is an overwhelming consensus in the science community that GMOs are substantially equivalent and are as safe as their conventional counterparts. The weight of scientific consensus in favor of GMO technology is abundantly clear from published statements of the world’s leading academies of science and responsible development agencies: World Health Organization: "GM foods currently available in the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (20 questions on genetically modified foods, 2013) European Commission: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.” (A decade of EU-funded GMO research, 2010) American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The science is quite clear: Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (AAAS Board Statement on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods, 2012) American Medical Association: “Our AMA recognizes that there is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA (GE) techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. To date, no evidence has supported an increased degree of allergenicity of bioengineered foods compared to their nonbioengineered counterparts.” (Report of the Council on Science and Public Health, 2012) National Academies of Science (USA): “An analysis of the US experience with genetically engineered crops shows that they offer substantial net environmental and economic benefits compared to conventional crops. The transfer of GE traits from GE crops to other crops or relatives has not been a concern for most non-GE crops. Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally.” (Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 2010) The Royal Society (UK): “A previous Royal Society report (2002) and the Government’s GM Science Review (2003/2004) assessed the possibilities of health impacts from GM crops and found no evidence of harm. Since then no significant new evidence has appeared. There is therefore no reason to suspect that the process of genetic modification of crops should per se present new allergic or toxic reactions…. Global food insecurity is the product of a set of interrelated local problems of food production and consumption. The diversity of these problems needs to be reflected in the diversity of scientific approaches used to tackle them.” (Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, 2009) International Science Academies: Joint Statement (including the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences): “GM technology has shown its potential to address micronutrient deficiencies . These nutritional improvements have rarely been achieved previously by traditional methods of plant breeding. GM technology, coupled with important developments in other areas, should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers... Decisions regarding safety should be based on the nature of the product, rather than on the method by which it was modified. It is important to bear in mind that many of the crop plants we use contain natural toxins and allergens.” (Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, 2000). Farmers say yes to GM crops That GMO crops are safe and desirable at least from farmers point of view, is validated by the wide adoption by farmers of GM crops since they were first introduced in 1986. Biotech crops are now commercially grown in 26 countries, of which 19 are developing countries (including the Philippines) and seven are industrialized countries. The cumulative hectarage of biotech crops mainly soybean, maize, canola and cotton, has grown to 2.1 billion hectares (2016). This outstanding performance makes the rate of adoption of biotech crops the fastest among agricultural technologies in modern times (a 110-fold increase over a 21-year period). The global benefits of biotech crops over the 21-year period include: 1) aggregate increase in farm productivity worth US$167.8 billion, 2) estimated non-use of 620 million kilograms of pesticide active ingredients, which otherwise would have been dumped into the environment, and 3) conservation of 174 million hectares of natural forests and grasslands which otherwise would have been plowed under to match the extra production from GM crops. Closer to home about 375,000 Filipino corn growers grow more than 800,000 hectares of GM yellow corn hybrids. Since 2002 when we first permitted the commercial cultivation of GM hybrid corn, the cumulative economic benefits has been estimated at R33.4 billion. With the adoption of GM hybrid corn technology we have since stopped importing yellow corn for animal feed. Although the comparison is not strictly valid, the attractiveness of GM yellow corn hybrids to our farmers can be appreciated from the yield differential between GM hybrid yellow corn versus non-GM non-hybrid white corn: 4.17 tons per hectare versus 1.75 tons per hectare, respectively. Mandatory GM food labelling is anti-poor Not only is mandatory GM food labelling bereft of scientific basis, it is also anti-poor on two grounds. Mandatory GM labelling will tend to scare consumers and drive GM crops out of cultivation in favor of organic foods. They have partially succeeded in doing this in Europe hence the global effort of the organic lobby to make GM labelling compulsory. But the problem is, organic farming unwisely bans the use of productivity enhancing inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and GM crops. As such organic produce are more expensive than conventionally grown foods because of lower yields and higher production costs. Higher food costs unduly penalize the poor, which is of minor concern to the affluent customers in Europe and the developed world. Moreover, mandatory labelling of GM products will impose additional costs to farmers, food processors, distributors and to the regulators. All of these extra costs will ultimately be passed on to customers, again imposing an unnecessary burden on the poor. In order to avoid unintended mixing of GM and non-GM crops in the farms, farmers must exercise extra effort to separate these crops by field and by time of harvest. Fields must be thoroughly weeded to get rid of unwanted volunteer plants from previous plantings. Extra costs will be likewise be incurred in postharvest and processing. Separate drying and postharvest facilities and processing lines will be needed to avoid unintended mixtures. Laboratory detection of GM DNA “contamination” require sophisticated procedures and will be an additional burden both to the food processors and to government food safety regulators. With legislation in place, law suits on proper labelling are inevitable. The extra costs of detection and quality control and costs of legal defense against class suits on mislabeling could be absorbed by large food corporations, many of which are multinational. The small- and medium-scale Filipino processors who cannot afford these costs could very well be driven out of business. The additional costs of mandatory GM labelling is estimated to be around 10-12 percent. In California where a bill proposing mandatory GM labelling (Proposition 37) has been defeated, the telling argument raised against the bill was the increase in the average California family yearly food bill by as much as US$400, for no purpose. One of the principal arguments of those who insist on mandatory GM food labelling is their right to know what they are eating. However, this right is not absolute and has to be balanced against the rights of others to affordable food. For those who shun GM foods, they can always buy voluntarily certified organic food which are GM-free. The same is true for kosher and halal foods. The costs for voluntary labelling and certification for these foods on religious grounds should be borne by those willing to pay the premium but not on the entire population. No less than the editors of the prestigious science magazine, Scientific American, have concluded that MANDATORY LABELS FOR GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS ARE A BAD IDEA (01 September 2013).

* Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP). For any feedback, email [email protected].