To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods
by Richard Dahl (excerpt)
Although campaigns for and against GE labeling [for genetically engineered foods] in California are focusing heavily on economic impacts, the real debate revolves around a scientific question: Are these foods truly safe or not?
“I think it’s fair to say that most scientists think the techniques that are used [to create GE plants] are not inherently dangerous,” says Peggy Lemaux, a cooperative extension specialist in the Plant and Microbial Biology Department at the University of California, Berkeley. In fact, in 2010 the European Commission released an analysis of 50 studies conducted on GE foods over the last 25 years and concluded that GE technologies posed no greater risks than conventional breeding technologies....
“The reason I don’t worry about GMOs [genetically modified foods] is not because someone has convinced me with a big study that they’re safe,” says Michael Eisen, an associate professor of genetics, genomics, and development at the University of California, Berkeley, and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “It’s because when I look at the technology, I understand what this technology is doing. They’re introducing proteins that have been very well characterized into plants, and I don’t see any reason at all to suspect that these are harmful. . . .”
Some scientists, however, believe questions about the safety of GE foods are far from answered. Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist with the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the question is not whether there’s risk involved in GE foods, but whether it’s greater than risks posed by conventional foods. “Because of the greater capacity to bring unknown quantities into the food supply, I’m of the school that says it has somewhat higher potential for risk,” he says. “Other scientists say no. But I don’t think it’s a settled debate.”
Hansen responds to claims that there’s no evidence of harm from GE foods by saying, “That’s just not true. I can show you all kinds of studies in the scientific literature that have . . . raised red flags that need to be followed up on.” In one such study, investigators reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed GE soybeans and maize. They found that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects,” with the kidneys more affected in males and the liver more affected in females. The authors, noting the limitations of the 28- and 90-day assays they reviewed, pointed out that chronic toxicity testing is not required for GE foods, but that it should be.
3
Select the correct answer.
Which description provides the best objective summary of the article in the passage?
A.
The purpose of the article is to tilt the reader’s opinion against food labeling for genetically engineered food. It presents expert opinion to support the claim that genetically engineered foods are safe and dismisses the opposing arguments.
B.
The purpose of the article is to tilt the reader’s opinion in favor of food labeling for genetically engineered food. It refutes claims that genetically engineered foods are safe by using expert opinion to support the opposite claim.
C.
The article presents a balanced view of the debate about labeling genetically engineered foods. It examines the claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as organic foods and then examines claims to the contrary.
D.
The article presents a balanced view of the debate about labeling genetically engineered foods. Its purpose is to demonstrate fallacies in different arguments for and against the claim that genetically engineered foods are safe.