On July 1, products sold in Vermont will be required to bear labels disclosing genetically-modified ingredients. That is, if Congress fails to put a voluntary federal labeling standard into law beforehand. The controversy impacts food consumers – and food producers

You’ve heard the facts before. In the next 30 years, planet earth will increase its population from 7 billion to 9 to 10 billion human beings. That’ll require producing 70% more food on roughly the same amount of land by year 2050.

At the same time, agriculture will be asked – or mandated – to reduce farming’s impact on the environment. That may adversely affect our ability to produce food animals and crops.

GMO PROTEST: American grassroots activists protested GM foods in a nationwide event held last May. Thinkstock photo

While it’s certainly not the only approach, the science of genetic modification and production of GMO products holds enormous promise. A 2014 study comparing the period before and after the use of GM crops found:

* a 37% decrease in pesticide use;

* a 22% increase in yields

* a 68% increase in farm profits

Lack of public knowledge feeds phobia
Public skepticism – extreme outrage in some quarters – clouds the biotech future for producing better plant and animal products. A 2013 consumer survey found that 25% had never heard of GMO’s; 50% knew little or nothing about them. Only 7% commented that GM products should be labeled.

The problem is that surveys can easily be designed to be biased. If a survey asks if labels should be required, a majority will usually say “yes”.

Critics love to argue: “Do we have the right to meddle with nature”? But a bigger question begs for discussion: “Do we have the right to deny improved foods to those that desperately need it?”

Golden rice is a classic example. It’s a GM product containing up to 23 times more beta-carotene (the precursor of vitamin A) than normal rice. Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to kill half a million children under the age of five each year in developing countries. Total mortality from vitamin A deficiency is estimated to be twice that number.

Even though golden rice was developed as a humanitarian tool, it met significant opposition from environmental activists. Yet, multiple studies confirmed no risk to human health or adverse side-effects.

GMOs do no harm
Dr. Troy Ott, animal science reproductive physiologist at Penn State University, has been on a mission to provide the public with unbiased GMO information. He’s quick to note: “None of my research projects or teaching activities,” he’s quick to note, “are funded by companies involved in the manufacture or sale of GMO’s.”

The genetic engineering process is simply a faster way of improving plants and animals, points out Ott. “We’re replacing what took hundreds or thousands of years by selection techniques. We can use proteins found in the natural world to edit, cut, copy and paste the DNA for traits of interest, and we can do it fast!

“Moving DNA between organisms and even between species also is common in the natural world. For example, the sweet potato is naturally transgenic. The process is the same approach that ag scientists use in the lab.”

To label or not to label
This is the battle now coming to the forefront. Currently, food labels are related to the food’s nutritional value or healthfulness. If there’s no difference between a GM food and its non-GM counterpart, what’s the purpose of GM labeling?

Critics say “If GMO’s are so safe, why are you afraid to label them?” Then if a label is supplied, critics argue: “If GMO’s are so safe, why do they have a warning label”? And, the next step is: “If GMO foods need a warning label, then they need to be banned!”

Remember, GM isn’t a “thing”. It’s a process. What’s most important is that food safety be confirmed by diligent testing

A fishy landmark’s impact on beef
In late November, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first genetically-modified animal for human consumption – the AquaAdvantage salmon. The fish was produced by inserting Chinook salmon and ocean pout genes into Atlantic salmon. It reaches an 8- to 10-pound market weight in about 18 months, versus three years for non-GM salmon.

Critics quickly labeled it as “Frankenfish”. Nonetheless, FDA confirmed it was safe to eat and nutritionally equivalent to non-GM farmed Atlantic salmon.

Since this is the first GM animal approved for human consumption, will the ability to grow much larger quantities of marketplace salmon, possibly at a cheaper price, affect beef’s market share? Will this approval at least partially open the door for other GM animal products? These questions will become increasingly important in the future.

GM not new, and much broader
Genetic engineering isn’t new and is used for more than food production. It also benefits mankind via animal models for producing transplantable organs and tissues and human or animal drugs plus other products. Here are a few major milestones occurring since the technology took off in the 1970s:

* In 1982, FDA approved “Humulin”, an insulin produced by genetically-modified bacteria.

* In 1992, the “FlavrSavr” tomato became the first genetically-engineered plant designed to stay firmer longer, allowing for better vine-ripening.

* In 1994, USDA approved Roundup-Ready soybeans. Other GM crops now include canola, corn, potatoes, squash and sugar beets.

* In 2009, FDA approved the first GM animal, a goat that produces an anti-clotting agent in its milk, for treating people with clotting diseases.

* In 2015, USDA and the FDA approved the Artic apple, genetically altered to resist browning.

Countless other GM ideas are under development – an “enviro-pig” that excretes less phosphorus into the environment; non-browning potatoes; chickens that resist bird flu transmission; drought-resistant corn; even allergy-free cats and dogs.

Harpster is a beef producer and retired Penn State University animal scientist.