Article Tools

OPINION
SPECIAL TO MSNBC

Oct. 24 — Oregon residents will soon vote on a referendum that may shape how the rest of the nation eats. Proposition 27 requires that any food or dairy item produced through genetic engineering be labeled.

A POWERFUL ALLIANCE of food manufacturers and agricultural biotechnology companies is pouring money into the state to try to ensure that the labeling requirement is defeated. If Oregon requires labeling, it’s likely many other states will consider doing so. In fact, a proposal for a federal law requiring labeling of genetically modified foods has already been introduced in the House and is likely to appear in the Senate late this year.

The opponents, led by biotechnology giant Monsanto and a number of huge food conglomerates including Kraft and Unilever, have their work cut out for them. Despite a budget that allows them to spend 40 bucks for every $1 the proponents of the referendum have, it’s hard to argue against the public’s right to know what they eat.

SAFETY AND COSTS
However, the proposition’s critics can argue that labeling is not necessary since genetically modified foods are safe.

They also can maintain that labeling would be very expensive, raising the price of products made in Oregon.

In terms of safety, the law’s opponents are on solid ground. The Food and Drug Administration has already weighed in against the proposed Oregon law on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence that foods containing biotech ingredients are hazardous. Genetically modified foods have been used in the United States and other nations for many years and have not been linked to health problems of any sort. Right now, 70 percent of processed foods in America’s grocery stores already contain genetically modified ingredients. So it’s very likely that you have already eaten food made with genetically modified soy or corn.

The argument about cost is not as persuasive. Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a number of European nations all have mandatory labeling laws and the price of food in these countries has not been affected in any significant way. Admittedly, the Oregon proposition is not clearly written, leaving uncertainty about what would have to carry a label. Still, it is hard to see why adding information about genetic engineering would be too expensive to undertake.

So why label if there is nothing to fear from genetically modified foods?

NO FAVORS FOR CONSUMERS
The answer is that genetic technology has not been used either to improve your food or to reduce the burden of current farming techniques on the environment. To date, little effort has gone into making food healthier, safer or more nutritious. Instead, companies like Monsanto have used the technology to create crops with more resistance to the herbicides and pesticides they already sell. This does little to cement consumer trust.

The way to change this is to make sure that consumers are informed so they can get what they want from genetic engineering — safer, healthier food that takes a lesser toll on the environment.

Should Proposition 27 be defeated, the biotech industry should promise to provide an aggressive, open and thorough voluntary program of consumer information about genetically engineered foods. People who want to know what foods have genetically engineered ingredients should be able to look them up on a Web site or by dialing a toll-free number. Anyone who wants safety information on foods that have been genetically engineered should know exactly how to get it. The only way to improve what you eat is to make sure that those who control the technology keep no secrets about what it is that you eat.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.