FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
SHOULD WHAT WE EAT
BE TRANSPARENTLY LABELED?

The question seems simple enough. Should foods containing genetically engineered ingredients be required to be clearly labeled as having been genetically modified?

Simple or not, voters in California appear to be undecided, and so ballot Proposition 37 has no guarantee of passing when the votes are counted Tuesday night. If what would appear to be a “no-brainer” decision can’t be easily made by California residents, it may be in no small part the result of the “No on  37” campaign which has received funding in the multi-millions from some major food companies.

“Top contributors to the anti-labeling campaign include biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and BASF,” according to a news report from Erika Bolstad of McClatchy Newspapers, posted on the Internet. “Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods and Nestle all have donated more than $1 million” to oppose labeling, her report went on.

The anti-label forces has raised around $45 million to get Californians to vote “No” on the measure, while the campaign to make labeling the law has had to work with only about $7 million, the McClatchy story said.

At issue is whether consumers purchasing food at retail outlets should be told clearly, on labels, if foods have been modified from their original, organic form. Many products now labeled as “natural” would have to have that word removed from the label if the initiative passes.

Those favoring Prop 37 say that the word “natural” on food causes people to be confused as to whether the product has been genetically modified or not. Some cynics among consumer groups go so far as to claim that this is, in fact, exactly why certain food manufacturers use the term “natural” on their labels, even though the food inside their packaging has been genetically modified, with their DNA altered.

One typical form of alteration is to “re-engineer” a food crop with genes from other plants, or even by adding animal genes to plants, as well as certain viruses or bacteria. The purpose of such alteration is to maintain the growing life of a food (some bio-tech crops are modified to combat pests or to tolerate herbicides) or to prolong the shelf-life of the food product—or to produce both results.

Pro-Prop 37 spokespersons say that what consumers want is not to eliminate or remove genetically modified foods from the marketplace, but simply to be able to make informed choices — to be able to “vote with our pocketbooks” whether they choose to eat food that has been engineered away from its organic form, as one person put it.

The ballot measure is an effort to “increase the transparency of the American food system,” the McCatchy story quotes Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Why would anybody oppose the measure? And why would consumers be confused about whether to vote for it?

Big Food sources have opposed the proposed labeling law on the basis of cost, they say, which would have to be passed on to families already stretching their food budget. It could cost the average family up to $400 a more per year, their argument declares.

Opponent also say that the measure, if passed, would provide inconsistent information to consumers, since it applies only to food purchased in retail stores, and not to food found in restaurants, for instance. Nor would it apply to some meat products—even though many animals are raised on genetically modified grains. So, Big Food says, people wouldn’t be fully informed about which of the foods they are eating are engineered or not anyway.

Supporters of the measure say that more information is better than less, and that just the forced removal of the word “natural” from food that is not “natural” at all, plus adding the words “genetically engineered,” or other words similar, would go a long way toward making it easier for the average shopper to make informed choices about which foods to buy and eat.

Consumer protection groups allege that Big Food does not want such labels specifically because major food producers are afraid that consumers will then shy away from their products.

On Tuesday, California voters will decide — and that decision could have major ramifications across the United States, persons on both sides of the issue say. If it passes, the new law in California would “bring one of the biggest consumer markets and food producers in the country in line with labeling laws in 61 other countries,” the McClatchy report from journalist Erika Bolstad said. And that, observers agree, might well force the issue in other U.S. states as well.

The New Spirituality invites a new way of creating all of society, not simply its food industry, and that way is called Total Transparency. There can be no real reason in an enlightened society not to tell everyone everything about everything, such a model suggests.

And your thoughts…?