Jessica Lee

GM foods: the path toward unintended consequences

Yep, big business is still running the country. Measure 27 ÷ the Labeling Initiative ÷ on the Oregon state ballot failed miserably on Tuesday as a result of misled and misinformed voters. Worried that genetic food labeling might become a national trend, the biotech industry poured in millions of dollars to stage advertisements and propaganda based on phony details.

If the initiative had passed, the law would have required labeling all genetically engineered food in Oregon.

People worldwide have spoken out in large margins in support of genetically engineered labeling. A June 2001 ABC News telephone poll of 1,024 adults found that 93 percent of Americans support labeling. Similar results were found by a 1999 Time Magazine survey ÷ 81 percent reported a genetically engineered labeling preference.

Although a supermajority supports printing genetically engineered information on labels, why did the measure fail?

Monstanto, a world-leading bioengineering corporation, had six million reasons why the initiative should fail. And they are all printed on greenbacks.

As a market-based society, competition between companies who produce and sell similar products gives consumers choice on who they wish to support with their purchasing power. Efficient markets are ones whose total costs and benefits are reflected in supply and demand curves. In non-economic terms, markets only work when the consumer is aware of all the benefits and costs involved in the production of the product.

The unsuccessful initiative proves that the food-producing sector wants to keep the consumer in the dark so they can mold the market to their advantage. Due to the political clout corporations have in Washington, the market is set up against consumers' right to know. Consumers should have the right to not put genetically engineered foods into their body for scientific, social, personal or spiritual reasons.

The biotech companies also have organic farmers in a throat hold because they are unable to market the complete benefits of their good ÷ as "GM-free" ÷ due to the restrictive rules of the labeling game. In other words, if they can label their product so the consumer knows it is GM-free, then by default the consumer will figure out what items are not.

Two-thirds of all food products are genetically engineered.

And what about the possible environmental and human health concerns? Supporting genetically engineered foods is playing the game of predicting unintended consequences. No one knew that genetically engineered corn would harm the monarch butterfly, nor how easily genes could travel via natural processes. There are also concerns about seed "ownership" and domination of the food markets.

Consumers have the right to not support technology that affects the blueprints of life itself.

Daniel Cucher

GM foods: They're going to benefit you, not kill you

Warning: This food product contains genetically modified organisms.

"Oh no!" cries consumer A. "There's genetics in this corn!"

"Yowsers!" yells consumer B. "This food has organisms!"

"Dude · " laments consumer C. "This food is altered from its true form. It's unnatural, man. Science, man · nukes." As though "natural" only refers to things untouched by human hands.

The label reads: "Genetically Modified Organisms." These are three incredibly scary words to Chester P. Buysalot, who thinks strawberries are born on supermarket shelves. It might as well read: This food product may cause excessive death disorder.

Genetically modified foods undergo the same health testing that all foods in the United States have to pass before they hit the masses. No one has ever bitten into a GM apple (for example) and dropped dead of genetic poisoning. Many people (and perhaps many monkeys) had to eat a lot of GM apples before they became available to the public ÷ they're proven safe.

Most anti-GM rhetoric comes from a fear of long-term health effects.

Here's a shocker for you: Genetically modified foods have been around for a while (you've eaten plenty) and they've never hurt a soul. GM food protesters cite a lot of junk science to amplify and invent health concerns. If there were cause for alarm, there would be evidence of harm.

Is there a chance GM foods will have negative long-term health effects? Yes. Anything is possible. It may one day turn out that drinking pure spring water causes blindness. But the chance is slim. And because the risk factors are so miniscule, requiring by law that GM foods be labeled as such is unfair to food producers. Why should they have to slap intimidating warnings on their products when no testing agency can prove a risk of harm?

There are some political and environmental concerns that must be addressed. But these matters are beyond the scope of whether or not GM foods can directly harm people's health. If food labels had to indicate political and environmental effects, then almost every bag of coffee (GM and non-GM) would speak of the social injustices endured by bean farmers and the erosion caused upon their land.

Food labels address two things: food content and nutrition.

Requiring GM food labels to indicate the modified status of an ingredient's DNA is an absurd political tool used to defeat food biotechnology. It is a conspiracy borne out of a fear of science. We are rightfully wary of technology's increasing influence on our lives. But we should not be misled into thinking that genetic manipulation of food is dangerous when it has proven to be not only safe but also highly beneficial.