A favorite scare story of progressive activists centers on “franken-foods”, which are genetically modified plants that are more resistant to pests or provide better nutritional value.

University of Arizona student Jacqui Oesterblad takes a sensible look at the topic, from scientific, environmental, and fiscal perspectives.

…But GM foods are truly no different from any other food, except, perhaps, for all of the ways in which they are better than other foods.

Humans have been selectively breeding plants for millennia; doing so in the lab is not a fundamentally different task, says Ellsworth, it’s only a faster and more precise one. This breeding results in foods that are equivalent to their peers in terms of health: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and even the European Commission have all now declared GM foods to be as safe as any conventional food.

The difference comes in environmental sustainability. Even accounting for the occasional rogue “superweed,” the National Research Council found that genetically modified crops have fewer adverse effects on their environment than other crops. This comes as a result of the drastically reduced use of insecticides and pesticides.

According to Ellsworth, Arizona alone has seen a 92 percent reduction in the use of broad-spectrum insecticides since 1991 — a total of 19 million fewer tons of insecticide being released into our water and air supplies.

GM foods are also more efficient, allowing us to grow more usable food per acre, a necessity if we want to feed a world population that is fast approaching 9 billion. It’s a miracle that we’ve even been able to feed the world for this long without major famines, says Paul Wilson, University Distinguished Professor in Agricultural and Resource Economics.

…Proponents of these campaigns argue that it’s just a label — they aren’t attempting to ban GM foods outright. But as we’ve seen in Europe, the result can be just that. Research to create new GMOs could be hurt by what UC Berkeley professor David Zilberman last year called the “stigma effect” of labeling laws. According to Wilson, GMO labeling can “creat[e] unsubstantiated fear in the consuming public.”

But more than that, the label itself is disingenuous. Why are GM foods, which have no health risks, displayed on the front of a box while saturated fat and sugar get to hide on the back? If foods that are grown using harmful fertilizers and pesticides don’t have to declare themselves, why should GMOs?

I respect the choices of those who choose to eat only locally sourced, organically-grown, GM-free foods. But those people should be lobbying the USDA to create a GMO-free label, like the one that already exists for organic foods, rather than lobbying voters to sign off on a proposal that raises food prices, reduces efficiency and casts scientifically-spurious doubts over technologies that will be a necessary part of any sustainable future we can conjure.