PRO/CON: Putting GMO information on our food labelsBy Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff11.13.15Grade Level 5Word Count 1,485

Demonstrators rally in favor of labeling GMO food at the Capitol in Albany, New York, April 28, 2015. Photo: AP Photo/Tim Roske

PRO: Many believe GMOs unsafe, want them labeledHealth and food safety are scary subjects for millions of Americans. They should be.

Polls show Americans are alarmed over what's in their food. Americans are worried about pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other unnatural things added to food. They are especially concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs are plant or animal products. They have been created by scientists in a lab. They use DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. The purpose is to make seeds produce more or stronger crops. The crops can be more resistant to insects and low rainfall.

A recent poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMOs labeled. Already, 64 nations require such labels.

Buying Non-GMO Food

Two-thirds of Americans believe that GMOs are unsafe. Millions of Americans are switching over to non-GMO, organic foods.

Indeed, Americans now spend more on organic food. More than 10 cents of every dollar Americans spend on food and drink is for products labeled “organic,” “non-GMO” or “natural.”

GMO labeling laws were voted on in California, Washington and Oregon. The big food companies like Coca-Cola spent millions of dollars to sway voters. Chemical companies did, too. Monsanto, the world’s largest maker of genetically modified seeds, spent millions. They were successful in stopping these labeling laws from passing.

Vermont, Maine and Connecticut have passed laws requiring the labeling of GMOs.

Vermont’s GMO labeling law goes into effect in July 2016. Already, it is causing major food brands to panic. They know they've got a problem. They have to make a choice. One option they have is to remove all GMO ingredients from their products. That's exactly what happened in European countries after GMO food labeling became required in the European Union in 1998. The other choice by food companies is to add a GMO label on the front of their packages and bottles.

Eighty percent of supermarket foods now contain GMOs. They also contain the toxic chemicals sprayed on GMOs.

Dangers Of One Herbicide

In March 2015, the World Health Organization of the United Nations (WHO) studied Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. It is made from glyphosate. The WHO said it probably causes cancer.

That prompted several dozen countries to stop the use of GMOs in farming. The state of California agrees about the danger. It added Monsanto’s herbicide to its list of cancer-causing chemicals.

In the United States, glyphosate herbicide is sprayed heavily on most GMO crops. Corn, soybeans, beets, wheat, beans and rice are all sprayed with it.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said that over time glyphosate can damage the kidney and reproductive organs of humans. And a scientific report last year connected glyphosate to damage to the human gut and digestive system.

Glyphosate use has also resulted in uncontrollable, herbicide-resistant superweeds on much of U.S. farmland. Meanwhile the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have given the green light to a scary new generation of GMO crops. They are allowed to be sprayed with strong toxicides. One of these was used to destroy crops and forests during the Vietnam War.

Billions of pounds of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides are now being sprayed on our food. They prevent insects from ruining crops. In addition, billions of pounds of chemical fertilizers are added to crops. They help them grow, sure. Yet they pollute the environment at the same time.

Our Health Is At Risk

GMOs and the chemicals used on GMO crops are destroying our health. They also poison our soil, water and air.

Americans want GMO labeling. Unfortunately, Monsanto and the other big food companies don't want that. Working with them are the members of Congress who receive money donated by those companies.

Right now, Congress is considering a law. It is called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. It would take away the rights of states to require labels on GMO foods.

The law would also let GMO foods be labeled as “natural.” This is wrong.

Americans can help stop this law from passing. Tell Congress you want labels on GMOs.

ABOUT THE WRITER: A leading global food activist, Ronnie Cummins is executive director of Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit, U.S.-based network of 850,000 consumers, and the author of “Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.” Readers may write him at OCA, 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland, MN 55603

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.

CON: GMO foods are safe, no need for labelsEighty percent of supermarket foods now contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

But labeling these foods is certainly not about food safety. No humans have been harmed by GMO products — ever. And it’s also not something that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can legally do right now. There is no scientific difference between GMO foods and regular foods.

By the year 2025, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates that two-thirds of the world’s population will confront a water shortage. Ecosystems will also suffer. Food will become harder to grow.

One way to make this scenario less dangerous to our food supply is to use GMO foods. They reduce the need for plowing fields. This allows the soil to stay moist. Then plants can retain more water.

In some cases, this will make the difference between a harvest or crop failure. Results show crop yields increasing significantly.

Right now, nearly 1 person in every 9 does not have enough to eat on this planet. GMOs can help.

GMOs Mean Fewer Pesticides

Another way that GM foods help us is that they use less pesticide. One study found that it reduced the amount of pesticides and their costs by more than one-third. Pesticides get a bad rap. They don't deserve it. The truth is that there are only tiny amounts of pesticides in the foods you eat. You are totally safe.

Toxicologists study how chemicals affect living things. As one put it, there are more cancer-causing substances in a single cup of coffee than there are in all the small amounts of pesticides you eat and drink in a year. That doesn’t mean that coffee will give you cancer. All it means is that there are very few pesticides in what we eat and drink.

An increase in crop yield and a decrease in pesticide costs will lower the price of food. That’s a good thing, particularly if you don't have much money.

It’s amazing people are even fighting over GMOs. They have been around for 20 years. In fact, people have been changing food genes forever. GMO crops are just a newer version of natural plant breeding that began more than 8,000 years ago. Back then, farmers bred plants by choosing the best ones to save for planting in the following year.

The corn we eat today, for example, is the result of genetically modified plantings from thousands of years ago. Within the last few hundred years, farmers began mating or cross-pollinating plants to grow more crops.

We Can't Afford To Label GMOs

GMO foods are no different. They just use modern technology. GMO foods also allow scientists to tackle certain problems with crops.

These crops produce foods that keep better. They spoil less from mold, don't cause allergies, and can even grow medicines in them.

Take the example of Golden Rice. It is a GMO food that contains beta carotene (Vitamin A) which helps to reduce blindness. It even prevents up to 2 million deaths annually in poor countries.

Labeling GMO products would be expensive. It could also discourage companies from making better GMO seeds.

Labels may seem like a simple way to share information. Yet they will cost food companies more. That will force them to raise food prices. Many people simply cannot afford that.

Those who wish to buy non-GMO foods can buy organic. However, if you buy organic, you are actually putting yourself more at risk.

Organic foods are four to eight times more likely to be contaminated with microbes. And for that, you are paying a lot more.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Richard Williams is vice president for policy research and director of the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. A former director for social sciences at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he holds a PhD in economics from Virginia Tech University. Readers may write him at Mercatus Center at GMU, 3434 Washington Blvd, 4th Floor, Arlington, VA 22201

PRO/CON: Is it time to label GMO foods?By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff

11.13.15

Grade Level 7Word Count 1,594

Demonstrators rally in favor of labeling GMO food at the Capitol in Albany, New York, April28, 2015. Photo: AP Photo/Tim Roske

PRO: You won't have to worry about what's in your foodHealth and food safety are scary subjects for millions of Americans — and rightly so.

Polls indicate alarm over the contamination of everyday foods. Americans are worried about pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other unnatural things added to food. Americans are especially concerned about genetically modified organisms(GMOs).

GMOs are plant or animal products that have been re-engineered in a lab. Scientists use the DNA of bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. The purpose is to make seeds yield more crops or make the crops heartier. GMOs also make them more tolerant of herbicides that kill weeds, and resistant to insects and drought.

Many Americans Want GMO Labels

A recent New York Times poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMOs labeled. Already, 64 nations require such labels.

Two-thirds of Americans believe that GMOs are unsafe. Millions of consumers are switching over to non-GMO, organic foods. As a result, organics have moved from a niche market into a $40 billion powerhouse.

Indeed, Americans now spend more than 10 cents of every food dollar for items labeled “organic,” “non-GMO” or “natural.”

Possible GMO labeling laws made it onto voting ballots in California, Washington and Oregon. The big food companies like Coca-Cola and chemical companies like Monsanto, the world’s largest manufacturer of genetically modified seeds, spent vast sums of money to sway voters. They were successful in stopping these labeling laws from passing.

Vermont, Maine and Connecticut have passed popular laws requiring the labeling of GMOs. In addition, eight counties in California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have banned GMO crops altogether.

Vermont’s GMO labeling law goes into effect in July 2016, already causing panic among major food brands. They know they're in a predicament. One option they have is to remove all GMO ingredients from their products — which is what happened in the European Union after GMO food labeling became required in1998. Otherwise, they can add a GMO label on the front of their packages and bottles.

Banned In Europe But Not In U.S.

Eighty percent of supermarket foods now contain GMOs and the toxic chemicals sprayed on GMOs.

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) declared Monsanto’s Roundup glyphosate herbicide a “probable carcinogen.”

That prompted the banning of all GMO cultivation in several dozen nations, including much of Europe.

In the United States, the glyphosate herbicide currently is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all GMO crops. Corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, cotton, wheat, beans and rice are all sprayed with it.

In California, authorities announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate would be added to its list of cancer-causing chemicals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously acknowledged that long-term exposure to glyphosate can cause kidney and reproductive damage. And a report by a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year connected glyphosate to damage done to the human gut and digestive system.

Glyphosate use has also resulted in uncontrollable, herbicide-resistant super weeds on the majority of U.S. farmland. Meanwhile, the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have given the green light to a controversial new generation of GMO crops. These crops are allowed to be sprayed with strong toxicides including 2,4-D — a component of Agent Orange. A herbicide, Agent Orange, was used to destroy crops and forests during the Vietnam War.

A Bad Bill In Congress

Billions of pounds of glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D and other toxic pesticides are now being sprayed on our food to prevent pests from ruining crops. In addition, billions of pounds of highly polluting chemical fertilizers are added to help crops grow.

This GMO chemical onslaught is destroying our health and contaminating our soil, water and air.

Americans want GMO labeling. Unfortunately, Monsanto, other big food companies and the members of Congress who receive political donations from them have decided that you, the consumer, have no right to know what’s in your food.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a highly unpopular bill, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.It would take away states’ and consumers’ rights to require labels on GMO foods.

The bill also makes it legal to fraudulently label GMO and chemical tainted foods as “natural.” Now this bill, dubbed the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, goes to the Senate.

Americans can help stop passage of the DARK Act. Tell the House and Senate you want mandatory labels on GMOs.

ABOUT THE WRITER: A leading global food activist, Ronnie Cummins is executive director of Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit U.S.-based network of 850,000 consumers, and the author of “Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.” Readers may write him at OCA, 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland, MN 55603

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.

CON: No need to worry, GMOs are safeIt’s been estimated that 70 to 80 percent of foods eaten in the United States contain ingredients that have been genetically modified. They are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

But labeling these foods is certainly not a food safety issue. There has never been a case of harm to people from GMO products —ever. And it’s also not something that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can legally do right now. It can't because there is no scientific difference between GMO foods and regular foods.

By the year 2025, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates that two-thirds of the world’s population will confront a water shortage. Ecosystems will also suffer.

One way to make this scenario less dangerous to our food supply is to use GMO foods. They reduce the need for plowing fields. This allows the soil to stay moist and helps plants retain water.

In some cases, this will make the difference between a harvest or crop failure. Some results show crop yields increasing by 4 to 8 percent in dry weather. Other results suggest gains as much as 21 percent.

With nearly 1 person in every 9 not having enough to eat on this planet, that’s a promising start.

Pesticides No Cause For Fear

Another way that GMO foods help us is that they use less pesticide. One study found that it reduced the quantity of pesticides by 37 percent and the cost by 39 percent. Although pesticides get a bad rap, the truth is that the trace amounts of pesticides that you find in the average diet are totally safe.

As one toxicologist put it, there are more carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than there are in all of the pesticide residue you consume in a year. That doesn’t mean that coffee will give you cancer. All it means is that human exposure to pesticides is extremely low.

An increase in yield and a decrease in pesticide costs will lower the price of food. That’s a good thing, particularly if you’re not well off.

It’s amazing that, after 20 years of GMO crops, there is still a debate about them. In fact, the manipulation of food genes is nothing new. It's just a newer version of natural plant breeding that began between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. Back then, farmers bred plants by choosing the best ones to retain for planting in the following year.

The corn we eat today, for example, is the result of genetically modified plantings from thousands of years ago. Within the last few hundred years, farmers began artificially mating or cross-pollinating plants to increase yields. GMO foods are a scientific extension of this process. Modern technology just allows the process to be done to greater effect and to tackle specific problems.

Labels Would Discourage Innovation

Thanks to technology, we can produce crops that keep better and are easier to process. These crops produce foods that spoil less from mold, have fewer allergens and, ultimately, grow medicines in them.

We have already seen that with Golden Rice, a GMO food that contains beta carotene (Vitamin A) which helps to reduce blindness. It even prevents up to 2 million deaths annually in poor countries.

Labeling GMO products would be expensive. It could also discourage innovation in this necessary technology.

While labels may seem like a good way to share information, the costs on manufacturers will force them to raise food prices. Many people simply cannot afford that.

For those who wish to buy non-GMO foods, there is the option to buy organic. However, it’s important to keep in mind that if you buy organic, you are actually putting yourself more at risk.

Organic foods are four to eight times more likely to be recalled for microbial contamination. And for that, you are paying a lot more.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Richard Williams is vice president for policy research and director of the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. A former director for social sciences at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he holds a PhD in economics from Virginia Tech University.

PRO/CON: To label, or not to label, GMO foodBy Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff11.13.15Grade Level 9Word Count 1,620

Demonstrators rally in favor of labeling GMO food at the Capitol in Albany, New York, April 28, 2015. Photo: AP Photo/Tim Roske

PRO: It's all about our need to knowHealth and food safety are controversial issues for millions of Americans — and rightly so.

Polls indicate alarm over the contamination of everyday foods by pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and synthetic additives. Americans are especially concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs are plant or animal products that have been re-engineered in a lab. Scientists use the DNA of bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. The purpose is to make seeds yield more crops or make the crops heartier, more tolerant of herbicides, and resistant to insects and drought.

A recent New York Times poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMOs labeled, an action already required by 64 nations.

Buying Organic Food, With Good Reason

Two-thirds of Americans believe that GMOs are unsafe. Millions of consumers are switching over to non-GMO, organic foods. As are a result, organic foods have moved from a niche market into a $40 billion powerhouse.

Indeed, Americans now spend more than 10 cents of every food dollar for items that are labeled “organic,” “non-GMO” or “natural.”

A series of highly publicized GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California, Washington and Oregon have fueled the fires of the “Frankenfoods” controversy. To stop these labeling laws from passing, the big food companies like Coca-Cola and chemical companies like Monsanto, the world’s largest manufacturer of genetically modified seeds, have spent vast sums of money.

Vermont, Maine and Connecticut have passed popular laws requiring the labeling of GMOs. In addition, eight counties in California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have banned GMO crops altogether.

Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law goes into effect in July2016, already causing panic among major food brands. They know they face a dilemma. One option they have is to remove all GMO ingredients from their products — which is what happened in the European Union after GMO food labeling became mandatory in 1998. Otherwise, they can add what Monsanto has called a “skull and crossbones” GMO label on the front of their packages and bottles.

Eighty percent of supermarket foods now contain GMOs and the toxic chemicals sprayed on GMOs.

WHO Declares A Probable Carcinogen

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) declared Monsanto’s Roundup glyphosate herbicide a “probable carcinogen.”

That prompted the banning of all GMO cultivation in several dozen nations, including much of Europe.

In the United States, the glyphosate herbicide currently is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all GMO crops, including corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa, wheat, beans and rice.

In California, authorities announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate would be added to its list of cancer-causing chemicals requiring special monitoring and warning signs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously acknowledged that long-term exposure to glyphosate can cause kidney and reproductive damage. And a report by a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year connected glyphosate to damage done to the human gut and digestive system. It can even lead to hormone disruption, impaired liver detoxification and lowered nutrient absorption.

Glyphosate use has also resulted in uncontrollable, herbicide-resistant super weeds on the majority of U.S. farmland. Meanwhile, the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have given the green light to a controversial new generation of GMO crops. These crops are allowed to be sprayed with dicamba and other strong toxicides including 2,4-D — a component of Agent Orange, the herbicide used to destroy crops and forests during the Vietnam War.

Billions of pounds of glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D and other toxic pesticides are now being sprayed on our food to prevent pests from ruining crops. In addition, billions of pounds of highly polluting chemical fertilizers are added to help crops grow.

Fight For Our Right To Know

This GMO chemical onslaught is destroying our health and contaminating our soil, surface water and air.

Americans want GMO labeling. Unfortunately, Monsanto, other big food companies and the members of Congress who receive political donations from them have decided that you, the consumer, have no right to know what’s in your food.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a highly unpopular bill — the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 — taking away states’ and consumers’ rights to require labels on GMO foods.

The bill also makes it legal to fraudulently label GMO and chemical tainted foods as “natural.” Now this bill, dubbed the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, goes to the Senate.

Americans can help stop passage of the DARK Act. Tell the House and Senate that you want mandatory labels on GMOs.

ABOUT THE WRITER: A leading global food activist, Ronnie Cummins is executive director of Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit U.S.-based network of 850,000 consumers, and the author of “Genetically Engineered

Foods: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.” Readers may write him at OCA, 6771South Silver Hill Drive, Finland, MN 55603

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.

CON: It's not about food safety at allIt’s been estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the food eaten in the United States contain ingredients that have been genetically modified. They are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

But labeling these foods is certainly not a food safety issue; there has never been a case of harm to people from GMO products — ever. And it’s also not something that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can legally do right now, because there is no scientific difference between GMO foods and conventional foods.

By the year 2025, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates that two-thirds of the world’s population will confront a water shortage and ecosystems will also suffer.

One way to make this scenario less dangerous to our food supply is to promote the use of GMO foods, which reduces the need for plowing. This allows the soil to trap moisture and helps plants retain water.

In some cases, this will make the difference between a harvest or crop failure. Some results show crop yields increasing by 4 to 8percent in arid weather. Other results suggest gains of as much as 21 percent.

With nearly 1 person in every 9 not having enough to eat on this planet, that’s a promising start.

Look At It This Way

Another way that GMO foods help us is that they use less pesticide. One study found that it reduced the quantity of pesticides by 37 percent and the cost by 39 percent. Although pesticides get a bad rap, the truth is that the trace amounts of pesticides that you find in the average diet are totally safe.

As one toxicologist put it, there are more carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than there are in all of the pesticide residue you consume in a year. That doesn’t mean that coffee will give you cancer. It just means that human exposure to pesticides is extremely low.

An increase in yield and a decrease in pesticide costs will lower the price of our food. That’s a good thing, particularly if you’re not well off.

It’s amazing that, after 20 years of GMO crops, there is still controversy. In fact, the manipulation of food genes is just an extension of natural plant breeding that began between 8,000 and10,000 years ago when farmers chose the best plants to retain for planting in the following year.

The corn we eat today, for example, is the result of genetically modified plantings from thousands of years ago. Within the last few hundred years, farmers began artificially mating or cross-pollinating plants to increase yields. GMO foods are a scientific extension of this process. Modern technology just allows the process to be done to greater effect and to tackle specific problems.

That means we can produce crops that keep better and are easier to process. These crops produce foods that spoil less from mold, have fewer allergens and, ultimately, grow medicines in them.

A Necessary Technology

We have already seen that with Golden Rice, a GMO food that contains beta carotene (Vitamin A) which helps to reduce blindness and prevent up to 2 million deaths annually in third-world countries.

The creators received a Patent for Humanity Award this year and received a blessing from Pope Francis in 2013.

Labeling GMO products would be expensive. It could also be counterproductive by discouraging innovation in this necessary technology.

While labels may seem like a good way to share information, the costs on manufacturers will force them to raise food prices. Many people simply cannot afford that.

For those who wish to buy non-GMO foods, there is the option to buy organic. However, it’s important to keep in mind that if you buy organic, you are actually putting yourself more at risk.

Organic foods are four to eight times more likely to be recalled for microbial contamination. And for that, you are paying a lot more.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Richard Williams is vice president for policy research and director of the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s

Mercatus Center. A former director for social sciences at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he holds a PhD in economics from Virginia Tech University. Readers may write him at Mercatus Center at GMU, 3434 Washington Blvd,4th Floor, Arlington, VA 22201

PRO/CON: Putting GMO labels on foodBy Ronnie Cummins and Richard Williams, Tribune News Service

11.13.15

Grade Level 12Word Count 1,477

Demonstrators rally in favor of labeling GMO food at the Capitol in Albany, New York, April 28, 2015. Photo: AP Photo/Tim Roske

PRO: Most Americans believe GMO foods are unsafe; they need labels to avoid themHealth and food safety are hot button issues for millions of Americans — and rightly so.

Polls indicate alarm over the contamination of everyday foods by pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, synthetic additives and, especially, genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

A recent New York Times poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMOs labeled, an action already required by 64 nations.

Two-thirds of Americans believe that GMOs are unsafe. Millions of consumers are switching over to non-GMO, organic foods, and as a result organics have moved from a niche market into a $40 billion powerhouse.

Indeed, Americans now spend more than 10 cents of every food dollar for items that are labeled “organic,” “non-GMO” or “natural.”

A series of highly publicized GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California, Washington and Oregon have fueled the fires of the “Frankenfoods” controversy — with the big food and chemical companies spending vast sums to stop labeling.

Vermont, Maine and Connecticut have passed popular laws requiring labeling of GMOs. Eight counties in California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have banned GMO crops altogether.

Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law goes into effect in July 2016, causing near-panic among major food brands, who face the dilemma of either removing all GMO ingredients from their products — which is what happened in the European Union after GMO food labeling became mandatory in 1998 — or else affixing what Monsanto has called a “skull and crossbones” GMO label on the front of their packages and bottles.

Eighty percent of supermarket foods now contain GMOs and the toxic chemicals sprayed on GMOs.

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Monsanto’s Roundup glyphosate herbicide a “probable carcinogen.”

That prompted the banning of all GMO cultivation in several dozen nations, including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Greece, Hungary, the United Kingdom, Russia and Denmark.

In the U.S., the glyphosate herbicide currently is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all GMO crops, including corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa, wheat, beans and rice.

In California, authorities announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate would be added to its list of cancer-causing chemicals requiring special monitoring and warning signs.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously acknowledged that long-term exposure to glyphosate can cause kidney and reproductive damage. And a report by a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year connected glyphosate to damage to the human gut and digestive system, as well as hormone disruption, impaired liver detoxification and lowered nutrient absorption.

Meanwhile, with the rise of GMO-induced superweeds on the majority of U.S. farmland, the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have given the green light to a controversial new generation of GMO crops that can be sprayed with dicamba and other strong toxicides including 2,4-D — a component of Agent Orange.

Billions of pounds of glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D and other toxic pesticides are now being sprayed on our food, accompanied by billions of pounds of highly polluting chemical fertilizers.

This GMO chemical onslaught is destroying our health and contaminating our soil, surface water and air. Meanwhile, the emissions from industrial farming have become major factors in global warming.

Americans want GMO labeling. Unfortunately Monsanto, other big food companies and their minions in the U.S. Congress have decided that you, the consumer, have no right to know what’s in your food.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a highly unpopular bill taking away states’ and consumers’ rights to require labels on GMO foods.

The bill also makes it legal to fraudulently label GMO and chemical tainted foods as “natural.” Now this bill, dubbed the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, goes to the Senate.

Americans can help stop passage of the DARK Act by picking up their cellphones and texting Label GMO to 97779. Tell Congress you want mandatory labels on GMOs.

ABOUT THE WRITER: A leading global food activist, Ronnie Cummins is executive director of Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit U.S.-based network of 850,000 consumers, and the author of “Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.” Readers may write him at OCA, 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland, MN 55603

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or its editors.

CON: GMO labels won’t make foods safer, only more expensiveIt’s been estimated that 70 to 80 percent of foods eaten in the United States contain ingredients that have been genetically modified.

But labeling these foods is certainly not a food safety issue; there has never been a case of harm to people from GMO products — ever. And it’s also not something that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can legally do right now, because there is no scientific difference between GM foods and conventional foods.

By the year 2025, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates that two-thirds of the world’s population will confront a water shortage and ecosystems will also suffer.

One way to help mitigate this scenario is to promote the use of GMO foods, which reduces the need for plowing. This allows the soil to trap moisture and helps plants retain water.

In some cases, this will make the difference between a harvest or crop failure. Some results show crop yields increasing by 4 to 8 percent in arid conditions with others suggesting gains as much as 21 percent.

With nearly 1 person in every 9 not having enough to eat on this planet, that’s a promising start.

Another way that GMO foods help us is that they use less pesticide. One study found that it reduced the quantity of pesticides by 37 percent and the cost by 39 percent. Although pesticides get a bad rap, the truth is that the trace amounts of pesticides that you find in the average diet are totally safe.

As one toxicologist put it, there are more carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than there are in all of the pesticide residue you consume in a year. And that doesn’t mean that coffee will give you cancer, it means human exposure to pesticides is extremely low.

An increase in yield and a decrease in pesticide costs will lower the price of foods, and that’s a good thing, particularly if you’re not well off.

It’s amazing that, after 20 years of GMO crops, there is still controversy. In fact, manipulation of food genes is just an extension of natural plant breeding that began between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago when farmers chose the best plants to retain for planting in the following year.

Modern-day corn, for example, is the result of genetically modified plantings from thousands of years ago. Within the last few hundred years, farmers began artificially mating or cross-pollinating plants to increase yields. GMO foods are a scientific extension of this process, and modern technology allows the process to be done to greater effect and with more specificity.

That means we can produce crops with better keeping and processing qualities, reduce spoilage due to mold, reduce allergens in food and, ultimately, grow drugs in foods.

We have already seen that with Golden Rice, a GMO food that contains beta carotene (Vitamin A) which helps to reduce blindness and prevent up to 2 million deaths annually in third world countries.

The creators received a Patent for Humanity Award this year and received a blessing from Pope Francis in 2013.

Labeling GMO products would be expensive and potentially counterproductive by discouraging innovation in this necessary technology.

While labels may seem like a non-invasive way to share information, the costs on manufacturers will lead to higher food prices, and many people simply cannot afford that.

For those who wish to buy non-GMO foods, there is the option to buy organic. However, it’s important to keep in mind if you buy organic, you are actually putting yourself more at risk.

Organic foods are four to eight times more likely to be recalled for microbial contamination. And for that, you are paying a lot more.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Richard Williams is vice president for policy research and director of the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. A former director for social sciences at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he holds a PhD in economics from Virginia Tech University. Readers may write him at Mercatus Center at GMU, 3434 Washington Blvd, 4th Floor, Arlington, VA 22201