To GMO or Not to GMO, That is the Question

Recently I've been pondering whether I need to spend more time seeking non-GMO food products.  The movement towards requiring food manufacturers to label their foods as containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is one that is hotly debated.  Large corporations such as Monsanto argue that labeling foods as non-GMO can be misleading, as it suggests that foods that are genetically-modifed are less healthy than those that aren't produced using this technology.

As I walked through the aisle at Kroger last week, I decided to pick up a half-gallon of fat-free, organic milk.  At $2.99, the cost seemed a bit high, but I liked the fact that I was buying a product that produced using organic practices and was free of GMOs.  I thought back on the organic milk I had purchased the week earlier when yesterday I bought a gallon of milk from the United Dairy Farmers (UDF) for the same $2.99.

That's right: for the same price I purchased twice the amount of milk.  The two products tasted the same, and the dietary information on the labels was identical.  So what's a person who has the best interest of animals, the environment, and the health of my family in mind to do?  My suggested solution, buy organic, non-GMO products when you can, but don't necessarily reject genetically-modified foods just because they are altered in some way.

Stories abound of large companies like Monsanto utilizing ethically questionable practices such as hiring individuals to roam the heartland using gestapo-like tactics to intimidate farmers into not only using genetically-modified grain, soy, and corn in their fields, but also threatening lawsuits when farmers violate patents by reusing seed from previous crops.  Monsanto is also a major player in the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) which is given to dairy cows to get them to produce higher volumes of milk more quickly than without rBST.

The use of rBST seems like a logical decision until one considers the testimony of many farmers that cows on rBST do not live as long and suffer more injuries (some fatal) as a result of the hormone.  I've read some farmers equating rBST as a product that's akin to "putting a Corvette engine in a Volkswagon," because a cow's metabolism is sped to way beyond where it should be and the cow eventually "burns out."

But do stories like these mean that all GMO products are necessarily bad, and that corporations such as Monsanto are inherently evil?  I don't think this is the case either.  As I continue to think about whether all foods that contain GMOs should be labeled, there will certainly be continued debate.