Being the progressive humanitarians that they are, the citizens of the great state of Oregon had the opportunity yesterday to save our country from the evil aspirations of both greedy moneymaking corporations and dangerous gene-splicing scientists, just by making a quick trip to the voting booths. Measure 27, a general referendum on the state election ballot, gave Oregonians the power to require all food companies doing business in Oregon to put a special label on products containing genetically modified ingredients. The election results came in too late last night to make it into this column, but the figures are less important than the main issue involved. The fact that the vote has been predicted to be closely contested is indicative of a swelling herd of people who harbor an inexplicable fear of genetically engineered food and who are looking to government regulation to "protect" the genes of their chow.
You shouldn't be afraid of genetically modified food unless you're either an organic farmer or an overly suspicious consumer. Roughly 70 percent of our national food supply contains ingredients that have been genetically engineered. The engineering process consists of the manipulation of cell nuclei in plants and animals to achieve vast increases in the quantity and quality of food produced. The most notable example of the success of this technique is the "Green Revolution" of the 1970s that resulted from scientists altering the genetic makeup of different strains of rice to provide more nutrition to the citizens of impoverished nations like India and Pakistan.
Despite the agricultural benefits of genetically engineered foods, supporters of Measure 27 have voiced a number of wild claims that make cigarettes sound healthy in comparison. Among these supporters is the Center for Food Safety, which argues, "These foods could be toxic, could cause allergic responses, could have lowered nutritional value and could compromise the immune responses in consumers." And I could be Elvis.
In a letter to Oregon's governor, an official with the Food and Drug Administration explained, "The FDA's scientific evaluation of bioengineered foods continues to show that these foods, as currently marketed in the United States, are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Moreover, mandatory labeling to disclose that a product was produced through genetic engineering does not promote the public health in that it fails to provide material facts concerning the safety or nutritional aspects of food and may be misleading to consumers" (http://www.votenoon27.com/fdaletter.pdf).
A release from the World Health Organization echoes this sentiment: "Genetically modified foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved" (http://www.who.int/fsf/GMfood/q&a.pdf).
The fact that opponents of biotech foods are too far over on the political left to get an endorsement even from the FDA and the WHO should give them a clue that they need to re-evaluate their stance.
Instead of fearing genetic food technologies, people should be terrified of a world without them. From 1960 to 2000, the world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion people. The corresponding rise in food production could not have been achieved without genetic engineering technology. And according to a paper published recently by the National Academy of Sciences, this genetic technology will be equally vital in sustaining the growing human race over the next 50 years. So while the WHO assures us that this technology has not killed or even harmed a single person, it has saved billions of lives by preventing widespread famine and malnutrition.
Without educating people as to what a genetic engineering label means, genetic labels will do nothing but scare naive consumers into the hands of neo-luddite farmers who charge three times the price for the fruits of their proudly less-productive labor. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the ranks of supporters of Measure 27 have largely been comprised of companies that produce and advertise their food as "biotech free." What better way for them to obtain a competitive edge than to get the government to scare off their competitors' customers?
The fact that the vote on Measure 27 took place a few thousand miles away does not mean that its consequences are confined to the flock of alarmists who might inflict this absurd labeling law on themselves. In fact, the repercussions spill well beyond the borders of Oregon. Like hastily recycled burritos down the proverbial steep hill, political silliness tends to flow from the West Coast onto the shoulders of unsuspecting Americans nationwide. It won't be long before some bright-eyed young congressman picks up genetic labeling and makes it into an issue on Capitol Hill.
As Norman E. Borlaug, the Nobel Laureate of "Green Revolution" fame, wrote, "Anti-technology proposals, like Measure 27, seek to ban this important, safe technology by scaring consumers into suspecting there's something to fear in their food
We can't afford to let anti-science activists force us to reject a tool so vital to food improvement and hunger relief efforts" (http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov52002/guide/measures/m27opp.htm). Hopefully Oregonians will have the sense to listen to him.
(Anthony Dick is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
