current issue home => from the ground up archive

Do Consumers Deserve to Know? Originally published in the November 2000 issue of the Co-op News. by Rosemary Fifield The Co-op recently cosponsored a public forum on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply. Among the four panelists was Estelle Hrabak, Ph.D., a geneticist from the University of New Hampshire who had great faith in the potential of biotechnology and little faith in the ability of the consumer to make informed decisions about GMO foods. Part of that lack of faith came from her perception that consumers are not educated enough about genetic engineering to make responsible choices. To her, the small audience of roughly 20 people was the perfect example of why consumers should not have GMO labeling — we don’t take the time to understand the issue. Dr. Hrabak bases her view on the fact that there are many different types of genetic modification and many applications for the technology, and that without extensive explanations on each product label as to what the specific genetic modification entails, the consumer will simply exhibit a knee-jerk reaction to all GMOs. In her words, "We might as well just put a skull and crossbones on the label." What I believe Dr. Hrabak does not understand is that consumers may have reasons to oppose GMOs that have nothing to do with the technical details she feels a label should contain. For instance, I understand that canola oil expressed from genetically modified rapeseed plants is a fat and does not contain the modified DNA or the protein that resulted from that modification. However, I don’t want to use bioengineered canola because rapeseed has too many weedy relatives with which it can cross to produce herbicide-resistant weeds. A canola-family weed resistant to Roundup, Liberty, and Pursuit — the three herbicides which canola has been genetically modified to resist — has already been discovered in Alberta, Canada. What more potent herbicide will the farmers in that area now need to use? I realize that the Bt toxin in biotech corn is specific to European corn borers and will not attack my system, but I don’t want to support the planting of Bt corn because Bt (Bacillus thurengiensis) is the organic farmer’s most effective control against pests like the Colorado potato beetle, the cabbage moth, and the European corn borer. The organic farmer uses Bt as a spray when needed, but building the Bt toxin into the plant itself is going to create Bt-resistant superbugs that are no longer susceptible to the spray. What non-toxic product will organic farmers then have to control these pests once their Bt spray has been rendered useless? I know that Roundup Ready soybeans and corn are resistant to the herbicide Roundup, and that their modified DNA (theoretically) poses no risk to me personally. But, I don’t want to purchase products made from Roundup Ready soybeans or corn because this is an example of a product that has no value to the consumer, limited value to the farmer, but produces great revenues for companies like Monsanto, which produce both seeds for Roundup-resistant plants and the herbicide Roundup, which the farmer must then purchase in addition to paying a premium for the modified seeds. I learned at the panel discussion that no product on the market today contains genes taken from shellfish or nuts, which carry the greatest potential for transfer of known allergens. Yet, what about the potential to create new allergens, formed from the novel end products of gene combinations previously unknown in nature? In the October 4, 2000 issue of The Wall Street Journal, columnist Holman W. Jenkins Jr. addressed the recent contamination of Taco Bell taco shells by a genetically modified corn called "StarLink" that has not been approved by the government for human consumption. He writes, "But only a single protein, Cry9C, stands between the corn and approval for human consumption. EPA says the protein resembles a known human allergen. Testing for the possibility makes perfect sense, but StarLink has been out there for three years, approved for animal feed and ethanol, and we just have to think that it’s been eaten by enough people that if they were getting sick, we’d know." How would we know? Even if epidemiologists were made aware of a nationwide increase in allergic reactions to "something," how long would it take for them to pinpoint the source as contamination of human food products with a crop approved only for animal feed and ethanol? In the meantime, how many more people would be put in danger of a life-threatening allergic reaction by continued consumption of something that none of us but the investors in Monsanto stock really need? I am not against the use of genetic engineering to better the lives of people and animals. Genetic manipulation already allows for commercial production of insulin and of an enzyme that replaces calf stomach rennet as a coagulant for cheese-making. Golden rice, with its added boost of beta carotenes, shows real promise for improving the nutrition of populations that rely on rice as their staple food. Biotechnology has the potential to create crops with enhanced resistance to disease, tangible health benefits, significantly greater yields, or a need for less water. Unfortunately, the foods on our shelves today do not represent any of these favorable outcomes. The technology has been used primarily for the financial benefit of private investors who, in turn, want to keep consumers in the dark so we cannot avoid their products. Genetic modification of the food we feed our families needs further refinement and control. Technology for technology’s sake is not necessarily a good thing, and tinkering with our food supply simply because we can doesn’t make it right or safe. That is why I believe consumers deserve to have the right to choose and the means to make that choice. I also believe consumers — Co-op members included— need to do a better job of informing themselves through attendance at public forums intended to increase their ability to become educated eaters. Rosemary Fifield is the Director of the Co-op’s Education Department.