The movement to force the labeling of genetically engineered food is gaining momentum. In November 2012, an initiative to require the labels in California was on the ballot; it was defeated. Now, federal legislation carried by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would mandate labeling most bioengineered food nationwide.
Yet the movement's argument is weakened by the lack of evidence that inserting fragments of DNA into crops harms our health. Pro-labeling activists — who also tend to be anti-Monsanto activists — point to polls finding that most Americans want the information labeled. But there is plenty about our food that consumers might like to know that is not on the labels. Food packages don't have to include information about the use of pesticides or hormones. There is evidence that the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock, not to treat illness but to fatten animals and prevent disease from sweeping through crowded pens, is contributing to the rise of drug-resistant infections that threaten human health. Yet antibiotic use also remains unlabeled, and most consumers are unaware of the practice.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does require the labeling of artificial ingredients, and many people consider bioengineered food artificial. Corn that can survive certain pesticides certainly didn't evolve naturally. But neither did the tomato, developed decades ago, that ripens into a bright, uniform red. The attractive color was a product of selective breeding, which had the unfortunate side effect of damping down the gene that provides a tomato's sweetness. That too is genetic modification, but no one is pressing for labels on hybridized or selectively bred crops.