I write primarily in response to Peter Colabuono’s article in the Winter 2003 issue of the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science entitled “The Genetically Modified Food Debate: Misconceptions in labeling.”

In his article, Mr. Colabuono labels as “anti-science, anti-globalization, and anti-technology” those who support the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), those who question the scientific and ecological viability of such organisms, and those who simply do not want to put organisms whose basic genetics have been altered into their bodies. He states that our society as a whole would be more economically stable if we were more educated. However, he proposes to reform our society by barring consumer knowledge of the components of our food-food that will ultimately enter our bodies and affect our health, as well as the environment around us.

These concerns about GMOs are not currently even “issues” in the European Union. The EU implemented a moratorium on the introduction of new genetically modified crops in 1998, which also instituted strict labeling practices required in every stage from seeding to sales. Much of the European legislation arose from consumer concern regarding the release of primarily untested substances (with unknown consequences) into the environment. It is, however, proven that GMOs-often created for a specific purpose such as resistance to pests, pesticides, herbicides, or for sterility-can cross breed with native organisms or organisms on neighboring farms. The European Union’s policy is therefore responsibly cautious (and in line with the Precautionary Principle of international environmental policy) since the consequences of producing and consuming GMOs are unknown and yet to be properly tested.

The story at home is quite different. The United States government is not only devoid of such responsible policies, but it actively works to thwart the EU’s system and avoids enacting similar policies, as such precautionary measures limit our agricultural trade options. Most Americans do not even realize that about 70% of all processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients. According to an informal survey taken here at Dartmouth in the Fall of 2002, a gross majority of students are unaware of their own regular consumption of genetically altered foods.

Some justify our government’ opposition to labeling in economic terms, positing that if consumers knew what they were eating, they would choose other options, thus hurting the big producers in our food economy. The economy, though, is perfectly capable of responding to consumer preference changes, and those companies will probably be able to respond pretty quickly with flashy new labels. I shudder to think of how other nations laugh at us, as they see us as a nation full of unknowing guinea pigs in an experiment with our land, our lives, and our farmers. Instead of educating consumers and allowing them to make informed decisions, we are force-fed untested and unregulated organisms by market dominating corporations such as Monsanto. We, as consumers, have the right to know and determine what types of farms and businesses we support, whether we choose to buy GMO foods from Kraft or organic products from a local farm. We should understand how farmers become bound to seed/biotechnology corporations that force them to repurchase seed each year (as opposed to saving them for reseeding). Manufactured seeds often express a “terminator gene” that renders the plant unable to produce viable offspring. This practice also keeps farmers, who otherwise could have saved their seed from year to year, tied to the seed producing giants like Monsanto.

Furthermore, these companies have patents on the genetic components of the modified seeds. Wind and other uncontrollable natural forces may spread seeds beyond controlled fields, into adjacent farms, victimizing unwitting farmers and jeopardizing the health of other crops and ecosystems. This kind of potential contamination not only would hurt the farmers economically, but also legally, as the patent-holding companies can claim copyright infringement against such unfortunate customers.

Lastly, without labeling and tracking GMOs from creation to consumption, we risk harming those who could allegedly benefit most from this technology: the starving. In 2002, Zimbabwe and Zambia, both facing imminent and horrific famines, refused food aid from the United States.
These developing countries cannot take the risk of introducing untested, living GMOs with reproduction capacity into the environment. With their environments and economies already in need of repair, these nations simply cannot afford to risk contamination of local environment or crops by such poorly understood and therefore dangerous organisms. Furthermore, these nations cannot allow GMOs to contaminate their exports, as they would lose their places in European markets.

It is clear that the issue of genetically altered food is a complicated one, and one that is replete with unanswered questions. And, at least until those questions are answered more sufficiently, the citizens of the United States (and of all the countries that increasingly mistrust our mysterious agricultural techniques) should be allowed to know if, how, and why the basic genetic components of our food have been altered. Humans, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Colabuono, do not become better educated by being denied access to information.

Susan Dubois ‘05 is an environmental studies major and a vegan.