Why all genetically engineered foods should be labeled
By Marc Lappe
The Greek philosopher Aristotle said it best: "Treat like
things alike, different things differently." No one can dispute
that genetically engineered food differs from its conventional counterparts.
The only question is whether or not that difference deserves a label.
Engineered food carries genes or gene products simply could not
be there by natural processes. Such genetically modified foods (GMOs)
by definition come with special, often alien, gene baggage. GMOs
are neither natural nor identical to their starting material. Unlike
all other natural products, newly engineered genes may be found
almost anywhere in the DNA of a GMO.
Actually the moniker "genetically engineered" is a euphemism
for an inaccurate, often chancy molecular experiment. That fact
alone should justify a label telling the consumer his products contain
genetically engineered material or products.
Why not label these artificial foodstuffs? They
are detectable. Virtually every gene-engineered product carries
a signature that gives away its ersatz nature. A simple $5 dollar
test can pick out genetically engineered, soy-based products from
their peers.
We don't let manufacturers of other products dupe consumers. An
unlabeled, knock-off copy of a CD is a fraud. Even atomically identical,
man-made and natural diamonds are allowed to be labeled so the consumer
can make the choice between the engineered version and the real
McCoy. People value the "real thing."
The FDA's bottom-line argument for not labeling is that engineered
and conventional foods are "equivalent." In fact, no one
knows if any food remains identical after it is genetically tampered
with. No scientific group, much less the FDA, has thoroughly examined
the actual nutritional makeup of any genetically engineered foodstuff.
What data we do have is hardly reassuring: The new GMO corn has
a toxoid in every kernel. We can only hope it has no deleterious
health effects on human consumers. As a result of our Freedom of
Information Act requests, we know the FDA, our gatekeeper for food
safety, keeps no studies in its files on this corn. In recently
expanded studies we found genetically conventional and modified
soy beans consistently differ in their phytoestrogen content.
The fact that no one has noticed that their ketchup or spaghetti
sauce has been adulterated with genetically engineered tomatoes
some year back does not give a federal agency the green light to
continue this deception. If the FDA followed its own precedent it
would enforce labeling. The FDA already endorses
the labeling of irradiated food, organic produce and processed foods,
even allows a kosher symbol on properly prepared items. None of
these foods differs nutritionally in consistent ways from their
conventional counterparts. Nor does the label say they do.
Would a label lead to the destruction of the biotechnology industry?
We don't see why. The biotech industry need not worry about consumer
preference if its products are actually as good as they say they
are. Consumers are savvy, smart and ultimately fair. They have won
the hard-earned right to choose what they want to eat. Many now
choose organic or low-fat foods. Others don't want genetically engineered
food. A simple label, now universally recognized in the European
Union, which says "contains GMO," should not scare anyone.
Shoppers have the right to fill their baskets with products they
can trust are accurately labeled. Tell the mom or dad looking for
baby food a label is unneeded. Even the Gerber baby food makers
have agreed GMOs have no place in their baby foods. Before other
manufacturers are forced to eliminate all genetically engineered
containing products, why not give them the option to label? Remember,
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Marc Lappe is author of Against the Grain--Biotechnology
and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food, 1998, Common Courage
Press.
|
