The real reason GMO crops aren't labelled on food

The area of research into the development and use of genetically modified organisms is a real hot topic amongst both the pro and anti lobby with all sorts of stories, myths and rumours flying around and any number of reports from both sides that often contain directly contradictory information. Officially there is no need to label food that contains genetically modified crops because they have been tested and approved as being safe for human consumption. What is far more likely is that it is understood by the development companies that there is a level of fear amongst the public that GMO crops are far from proven safe and that labelling will have a serious adverse effect on sales. However even this doesn't ring completely true. Lets look at the history of similar cases from recent history. A good start point is the introduction of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) an organochlorine insecticide that was introduced as an agricultural pesticide in 1946, having been used to prevent typhus and malaria during the second World War. DDT had first been synthesised in 1874 but its insecticidal properties weren't discovered until 1939. Its use in agriculture was widespread throughout the 1940's, '50's and into the '60's becoming almost ubiquitous. In 1962 Rachel Carson published a book called “Silent Spring” detailing the environmental impact of DDT and its resilience in the foodchain. This prompted further research into its effect on human populations, the results of which led to DDT being banned in the US in 1972 and in Europe shortly after. Now, it should be noted that DDT was highly effective as an insecticide, but it had been released to market before being fully tested in long term studies.

A second similar story is found in the history of the sedative drug Thalidomide. The drug passed safety and efficacy testing and was used to treat morning sickness during pregnancy amongst other conditions from 1957. It was only after reports of high numbers of serious birth defects in the late 1950's and early 1960's that further research established that Thalidomide was the cause. Thalidomide is still approved as a drug but is not used where pregnancy is a possibility. In both of these cases there is commonality in that chemicals that had been tested and approved later turned out to have serious consequences. Now bear in mind that the effects of introducing something new into the environment can take ten years to demonstrate consequences, and that a substance in the food chain that had an adverse genetic effect might take two or three generations to demonstrate, or fifty years plus in human populations. It begins to become apparent that the possibility exists that the impact of genetically modified crops has really not yet been proven, nor will it, until it is too late.

The cost of development, and the return on investment demanded by the development companies is such that to wait fifty years for approval for use would be impossible, so we have a choice to make. We either decide that GMO will not be released into the environment and food chain until fully tested, no matter what cost in terms of food production, or we accept that we are taking a risk and accept that we have to live with the consequences of that risk. The problem with either of these courses of action is that it is not us, the public who are making those decisions, but our political leaders, who time and time again have demonstrated that they are not necessarily acting in our best interests. I guess we will just have to see what happens over the next fifty years, but if it all goes wrong, the court cases will be spectacular, but of course no-one involved in introducing these organisms will be alive to see them, so that's ok.