Why Label Transgenic Foods?
On April 12, the Agriculture Committee of the Legislature will hold a public hearing on L.D. 713, a bill to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. The argument for this legislation is simple, and compelling.
The biotech industry has been fighting public relations battles on a lot of fronts these days, but the most ill-conceived of all the battles, in my opinion, is the battle against labeling its products. It didn’t have to be that way. Back in late 1995, the first commercial genetically engineered crop found its way to the produce section of the Old Town Shop ‘n Save. It was the Calgene "FlavrSavr" Tomato, engineered to prolong shelf life. I bought one, and passed it around at a meeting of the Commission to Study Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, on which I served. It was a round, firm, red tomato, that happened to be fully compliant with the proposed labeling bill. It had a small round sticker on each tomato, which proudly proclaimed that it had been genetically engineered. Along with the display were brochures that explained how Calgene had developed the product. The Calgene tomato is back in the lab for reengineering, because its flavor wasn’t superior enough to other hot house tomatoes to command premium prices. On the subject of labeling, however, Calgene was absolutely right.
Consumers want their genetically engineered food labeled. The January 11, 1999 issue of Time Magazine reported that in a national survey 81% of the public said they wanted genetically engineered food labeled; only 14% said it shouldn’t be labeled. When the USDA proposed to label irradiated and/or genetically engineered foods as "organic," the public outcry was unprecedented. More than 280,000 letters, calls and e-mails in opposition flooded the USDA – the second highest number of comments on any proposed federal regulation ever. Only 20 comments supported calling genetically engineered foods "organic."
After a year and a half of work, of reviewing the federal and state regulatory scheme, and speaking with experts in the field, the Maine Commission to Study Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering came to a clear consensus: the FDA "should promulgate a regulation for labeling of genetically engineered foods broad enough to protect the consumer’s freedom of choice in the marketplace and ability to avoid health risks." (March, 1996) With three years gone by and the FDA still bowing to pressure from the biotech industry, it's time for states to move into the void and require labeling.
Why is labeling so important? To quote the Maine Biotech Commission’s Report:
Roughly one to two percent of the United States population, or 2.5 to 5 million people suffer from true food allergies – reactions to substances in foods mediated by the immune system, in most cases by immunoglobin E (IgE) antibodies... Genetically engineered foods could lead to further increases in the incidence of allergic reactions to food. Most, if not all, natural food allergens that react with IgE-mediated antibodies are proteins or glycoproteins. Because genes encode proteins, food obtained from organisms genetically engineered to express new genes will in most cases contain proteins that were not previously found in the food....Thus, it is entirely possible that future availability of genetically engineered foods could lead susceptible individuals to be allergic to foods they previously could safely consume. (Report, at 17-18)
This is not pure speculation. Pioneer Hi-Bred dropped plans to commercialize soybeans genetically engineered with a gene from Brazil nuts because the engineered beans produced antibodies in blood serum samples from Brazil-nut allergic individuals. The FDA itself has admitted that its "principal concern regarding allergenicity is that proteins transferred from one food source to another might confer food from the host plant the allergenic properties of the food from the donor plant." This is an even greater concern when the donor plant – or insect, animal, or bacteria – is one that humans have never before consumed.
One of my colleagues who is a biochemist has pointed out that there is "no evidence" that genetically engineered foods are more allergenic than other foods. This may be true, but it begs the question. With other foods, we know what we are eating, and it is buyer, and eater, beware. That’s why it’s so important to identify peanuts on the candy bar label and sulfites on the wine bottle. With genetically engineered foods, we’re buying, and eating, in the dark.
Citing the Pioneer Hi-Bred experiment, an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine came out strongly in favor of labeling:
This situation illustrates the pressing need to expand basic and clinical research on food allergies...In the special case of transgenic soybeans, the donor species was known to be allergenic, serum samples from persons allergic to the donor species were available for testing, and the product was withdrawn. The next case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate. It is in everyone’s best interest to develop regulatory policies for transgenic foods that include premarketing notification and labeling. (NEJM, March 14, 1996, at 727)
While I don't count myself among the extreme Y2K alarmists, I do marvel from time to time at how many intelligent and highly educated computer programmers could make such a costly mistake. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "Nature is fallible and mankind doubly so." Are the functional equivalents of those computer programmers toying with the genetic makeup of our food system? Only your body knows for sure.
Sharon S. Tisher teaches environmental law at the University of Maine, and is President of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association