An Urban's Rural View

The New York Times asks, "Why Label Genetically Engineered Food?" It isn't unsafe, the newspaper argues in an editorial (http://tiny.cc/…), and those who don't want GEs can always buy organic food.

To which the head of the Center for Food Safety responds, safety isn't the issue; if a product is unsafe it should be taken off the market. The standard for disclosure, the food-safety man says in a letter to the editor (http://tiny.cc/…), is whether there's been a "material" change in the food.

There has been, he maintains: GE foods "contain novel bacterial and viral genes never seen before in food." Therefore, we have a right to know.

A debate judge examining this exchange might say the newspaper is right in its premises but its conclusion doesn't necessarily follow, while the responder's premises seem shaky but his conclusion is probably right.

The judge might add that the argument is close to being moot. With more than 20 states considering legislation, the labeling train is leaving the station. It will be hard to stop.

Both of the Times' main points are right. There's no evidence GE food is unsafe and for those who don't want to eat it anyway, there's already the organic alternative. The responder's novel, never-before-seen-in-food point misses the mark. We've been eating food containing many of these bacterial and viral genes for the better part of two decades.

Still, many people seem to care whether their food contains GE ingredients. The care is needless, but needless or not it's hard to argue they don't have a right to know.

Sooner or later some state will pass a labeling law. Then food companies will be forced to create two different labels, one for that state and another for the rest of the country. What happens if a second state passes even a slightly different law? Suddenly there are three sets of labels.

It doesn't take much acuity to see where this leads: a national standard requiring some sort of uniform labeling. Already there's talk the companies are quietly talking to the feds, asking them to step in before the situation gets out of hand.

This makes sense, for while labeling may be inevitable, there ought to be one label requirement only, and there's still a debate to be had about what exactly the label should say. Industry has a much better chance of "winning" this debate, in the sense of achieving a disclosure that's accurate without being inflammatory.

For example, rather than a simple "contains GE ingredients," the label might identify what percentage of the contents is GE. In many cases this will be small. Think, a jar of peanut butter containing a touch of sweetening from genetically engineered sugar beets or high fructose corn syrup.

The position of the disclosure on the label, the precise wording, the type size -- such devil-in-the-detail issues are still to be resolved.

We have to hope the resolution will strike a balance. Let's respect the consumer's right to know. But let's not require labeling that makes a safe product seem scary.

(SK)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.