Why Neil Young is wrong about genetically modified food labelling

Illustration by Susan MacDonald

Illustration by Susan MacDonald

Neil Young is urging you not to buy coffee at Starbucks anymore.

He’s upset that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, of which Starbucks is a member, is suing Vermont over the state’s new law that will require labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients by summer of 2016.

In an open letter, Young claims that “we have a right to know what we put in our mouths.” As I’ve argued before, that simply isn’t true, at least not as a generalization. You certainly have a right to control what you put in your mouth, but that doesn’t — and cannot possibly — include a right to know every detail of every thing you put in your mouth. If you don’t trust something, don’t eat or drink it. Don’t buy it. But you don’t have the right to insist on knowing everything about it. You might want to know whether your food was harvested by the light of a full moon, but you don’t have a right to that information. A business that refuses to give you that information isn’t violating your rights.

It doesn’t help, of course, that one of the other key players in the lawsuit is Monsanto, a company that for many people represents evil incarnate. As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m no fan of Monsanto. But its involvement shouldn’t blind us to the fact that GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) are, as a category, no less safe than any other kind of food. Nor should it blind us to the fact that the GMO category is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive if what you’re worried about is potentially-harmful forms of genetic modification. Scientists understand this. Neil Young does not.

Young is right about a couple of things, though. He rightly suggests, for example, that public pressure might get Starbucks to change its ways. This is quite plausible. Lots of companies are already caving in to irrational public fears regarding GMOs. Starbucks could be next, so Young’s strategy, regrettably, just might work.

He’s also right that there is more at stake, here, than what can be sold in one relatively small US state. It’s entirely possible that if the Vermont law is allowed to stand, the precedent it sets will help make it easier for other states to jump on the bandwagon.

But what Young is right about is far outweighed by what he’s wrong about. He claims that the lawsuit is trying to “stop accurate food labeling.” That’s a gross misrepresentation. There’s nothing importantly “accurate” about a label that says “this product contains GMOs,” even when it’s technically true. For that to count as accurate labelling, it would have to be a meaningful label (one that distinguishes one kind of ingredient from an importantly different kind) and it would have to have some chance of being understood by customers. Such a label is much more likely to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and mistakenly taken as a reliable guide to better purchasing decisions.

Consider: what if some jurisdiction foolishly passed a law saying that all foods containing carbon had to be labelled as such? What if someone opposed that law? Would they be fighting “accurate food labelling?” All food contains carbon. Pointing it out helps nobody. And claiming that they have a “right” to be told it is just plain silly.

4 comments so far

  1. jacobfoconnor on

    “But its involvement shouldn’t blind us to the fact that GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) are, as a category, no less safe than any other kind of food.”

    I think you may need to further your education on GMO foods. GMO foods are detrimental to our health and the environment. I would not want to eat them nor support those who make them. I could post the facts and information, but I think this is a topic you should probably explore yourself, for your health and the health of the planet.

    • Chris MacDonald on

      Thanks but I’m well informed on the topic. Scientific consensus is very clear. There is no evidence of risk to human health is.

  2. jacobfoconnor on

    My apologies then. Guess I have found my information from different sources 🙂 Enjoying the site!

  3. Kostya on

    Personally I believe that GMO is bad. Humanity lived centuries without GMO, and who know’s what will follow in a hundred years.

    Despite of my personal beliefs, in not far future difference between GMO and non-GMO products will be vanished. It is very comparable with introducing strong chemistry products in food production (E-XXX).

    For experiment, there are military food warehouses. Some products (ex. meat) are stored above 50 years or so (50 years ago there was no GMO and other aggressive chemistry in food industry).
    It would be rather interesting to taste and compare those meet products and nowadays. Just think about, 50 years ago those cows and pigs were living in completely other world (just calculate how much oil was extracted and CONSUMED for this period).
    When we consume day by day similar products we don’t tend to feel the difference.

    After such test, discussion on GMO may be more accurate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: