Scientific American has come out with an editorial supporting the use of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] in food and opposing any laws that might require the labeling of foods containing GMOs. See this [via JC].
Purported claims about adverse effects of GMOs often center around tumors in rats (anyone who has worked in drug development knows how different rats are from humans) induced by inordinately high amounts of substances administered over unrealistic periods of time. This is also true of many other studies proclaiming the ghastly effects of all kinds of chemical substances, from glyphosate to materials in “toxic couches“. Whenever you come across a study claiming GMOs are toxic, it’s worth asking questions about the nature of the test animals, the dosage and the statistical significance of the results at the very minimum.
I have no qualms about eating foods with GMOs. I'm not so sure I share SA's view on labeling.
GMO labeling can create unnecessary fear and confusion in consumers’ minds and amplify risks at the expense of downplaying benefits. Do we list every potential, vaguely suspected but not proven danger from every single material used in a car while selling it to consumers? And since random bits of foreign DNA are introduced into our food supply anyway, should we once again appeal to the Precautionary Principle and have a label on every single product in the grocery store saying that “This product may contain foreign DNA” just because we don’t really know what that DNA can do? In fact while we are at it, why not label the wheat in every single product on the store aisle? After all, even so-called “non-GMO” wheat has undergone countless deliberate genetic modifications over the last few centuries.
The cited piece makes some strong arguments against requiring labeling, but my hesitation on that front comes from reading the bullying, belligerence of people saying that the worries about global warming are "settled science". I am skeptical whenever I see such strong language. It's not that I'm skeptical about the safety of GMOs; rather, it's that I just react negatively to the attitude of, "Trust us. We're scientists. We know what's best." See this. I'm not convinced that the benefits of protecting the ignorant from themselves outweigh the costs.