By PAUL D. JOHNSON
January 18, 2005
The
U.S. economy manages to follow the law and label every electronic gadget and
stitch of clothing with where it comes from. Manufacturers likewise have no
trouble putting a required nutrition list on food packages. But telling where
food originates is called too daunting, and whether it was made by means unknown
in nature is judged irrelevant.
The rest of the developed world doesn't see it so, and apparently isn't as
beholden to agribusiness interests as is our government. Americans deserve
better.
Congress supported the right of consumers to know where their food comes from
and included a country-of-origin label requirement in the 2002 farm bill. But
the Agriculture Department opposed this, favoring a voluntary program, and its
economists warned implementation would cost $1.9 billion.
University of Florida researchers, on the other hand, estimated the price would
be 90 percent below that claim and cost consumers less than one-tenth of a cent
per pound of food.
The government then quietly lowered its
estimate by two-thirds. But the political damage was done. Congress postponed
implementation, and now foes want the plan repealed before it can ever take
effect.
Meanwhile, the nation's four biggest meat packers, who process more than 80
percent of the beef in this country, are quite happy. Without the label
requirement, they can continue to import cheaper foreign beef to leverage down
the price of American cattle. This imported beef gets an Agriculture Department
inspection label when processed here, and is sold to unsuspecting consumers who
assume it is expensive American beef.
Also keeping consumers in the dark, the Food and Drug Administration refuses to
require labels on food whose production involves genetic modification.
In 1994, the agency approved commercial use of a genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone to increase milk production, and said that no label was needed.
Canada looked at the same test data from the manufacturer, Monsanto, and banned
the hormone. So did the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other
industrialized countries. There is concern that the hormone raises human cancer
risk. And because cows on the production stimulant are more prone to udder
infection, more antibiotics are used. Overuse of antibiotics undermines our
pharmaceutical arsenal by encouraging antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
The Agriculture Department reported in 2002 that 2 million of America's 9.2
million dairy cows received the hormone, and that larger dairies use it far more
than farms with fewer than 100 cows. Given the industry's mixing of milk from
many farms, most U.S. dairy products have milk from injected cows.
The FDA ruled in 1992 that genetically modified food did not differ from other
foods in any meaningful way. But there was considerable debate within the FDA
over the differences between foods with and without genetic modification. A
lawsuit filed by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity prompted the agency to release
documents that highlighted the concerns some agency scientists had about biotech
foods.
But under this country's present voluntary system, they remain unlabeled. Polls
show demand for this kind of food is low, and a large majority wants labeling.
That could spell market failure, so biotechnology companies and agribusiness
giants are opposed.
Without any labeling and separating of genetically modified ingredients, many
overseas buyers have rejected corn, soy, canola and cotton from the United
States and Canada. In this country, large natural-food supermarket chains have
announced they will use no genetically modified foods in store brands.
But most processed food in this country contains soy, corn or both in some form,
and 80 percent of soy and 38 percent of corn commercially grown in the United
States is genetically altered.
In a free and open market, transparency is necessary for consumers to know what
they are getting. Scientists and other nations around the world recognize this.
But where and how American food is raised too often remains hidden. We should
enjoy this basic right to know.
Paul D. Johnson is a northeast Kansas organic market gardener and a
family-farm legislative advocate for several churches in Kansas. He is a member
of the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
