The panelists for a discussion on “is GMO labeling a nightmare or a boon” at the North Carolina Agriculture and Biotechnology Summit held Nov. 18 in Raleigh included those who see the need for mandatory GMO labeling and those who are opposed to the idea.

While there was much debate on the need for labeling, all panelists agreed that genetically modified organisms have been proven safe and there is no evidence of health concerns. Those opposed to mandatory labeling expressed concern about the costs and the increased level of regulations and bureaucracy while those in support of mandatory labeling cited transparency and the consumer’s right to know.

Panelist Phil Miller, vice president of global and regulatory affairs for Monsanto, is opposed to mandatory GMO labeling and said mechanisms are already in place to ensure that GMO products are safe.

“In the U.S., the FDA has been designated as the responsible organization to make sure that we have a safe and nutritious food supply,” Miller said. “There are laws and regulations that state, regardless of the technology, regardless of the food that is put on the market, it is a legal requirement that the food be safe to enter commerce.”

Bo Stone, who operates P&S Farms with his wife Missy and his parents in Rowland, N.C., stressed that GMOs are a must for farmers today and that they are safe. “As a farmer, and as many farmers in the U.S., we have adopted the use of GMOS widely on our farm,” Stone said. “We can see the benefits in that they require less water and fewer chemical applications than conventional crops.”

While he supports mandatory labeling for anything that presents a safety risk such as peanut allergies, Stone said he does not support mandatory GMO labeling because scores of scientific studies have shown there are no risks to GMOs. “There is nothing that has been more deeply tested than the use of GMOs.  I see the benefits of GMO on our farms and I believe in that science.”

Stone said his primary concern about mandatory GMO labeling is cost. He cited a study by a Cornell University economist that shows mandatory GMO labeling will cost $500 per year to each American family.  For farmers, the cost of setting up a network, separating and storing GMOs from conventional varieties and establishing different supply chains for GMOs will be burdensome, he stressed.

Stone said adding another layer of regulations is unnecessary and safety mechanisms are already in place. “We already a situation in place where something is certified organic it has to be non-GMO as well,” Stone said.

Kevin Folta, chairman and professor of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, said GMO labeling and GMO policy should be dictated strictly by science and evidence and not by manipulation of emotion.  To illustrate his point he mentioned the ban of Red Dye #2 in 1971.

“My niece, who I’m raising, picks the red M&Ms out of the bag and eats them first,” Folta said. “I told her about a time not so long ago when you couldn’t get red M&Ms because of a shoddy piece of science that came out of Russia in 1971 where someone linked Red Dye #2 to cancer. It wasn’t true; FDA never showed that conclusively. It limited choices because of fear, not because of good science. It showed how fear is very strong in manipulating public perception.”

Those in favor of GMO labeling said it all boils down to transparency and the consumers right to know.

Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for the policy and advocacy division of Consumers Union, said it is a right to know issue. Consumers Union is a major proponent for mandatory GMO labeling.

Hansen pointed out that labels on food are not just about safety or nutrition.

“FDA requires foods to be labeled if they or fresh or if they are previously frozen. For juice, you have to say whether it’s been reconstituted or not. We have country of origin labeling. We even require labeling of irradiated foods where there Is no safety issues but it’s something that consumers want to know,” Hansen said.

Scott Faber, vice president of governmental affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said being a supporter of GMOs does not meant that you have to be opposed to GMO labeling.  “You can be a GMO supporter and also be someone who believes that people have the right to know what’s in their food,” Faber said.

He noted that the debate isn’t about technology at all. “It’s really a debate about transparency and whether people have a right to know about what’s in their food and how it’s made. People want to know more about their food,” he said.