Label readers are an endangered species
Commentary by DICK DORWORTH
"Tell me what you eat and I will
tell you who you are."
- Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
Astute consumers of the foods they eat make
a practice of reading the labels on the products they are about to buy.
This is often the most reliable information available for making an
informed decision about whether to buy a product or to pass it by. Not
every consumer, however, is discerning, interested or concerned enough to
investigate the ingredients that went into the production of their box of
cookies, package of frozen chicken enchiladas, can of soup, bag of potato
chips, bottle of flavored and sugared water known as a soft drink, or any
of the other edible items available in such abundance in the markets of
the developed nations. So long as it satisfies their immediate hunger, all
too many Americans pay scant attention to what is in the foods they eat.
It is a legal requirement in the United
States that labels containing ingredients and nutrition facts are printed
on the packaging of many of the foods we buy. This information is mandated
by law, not volunteered by food companies eager to educate the public
about the mixtures of chemicals and hormones, flavors and preservatives,
stabilizers and sugars, fats and acids and sodiums that make up and are
added to the foods they sell. The purpose of such labeling is, first of
all, to protect the public. Secondly, it is to educate the public and give
them freedom of choice concerning their own health. An ignorant public,
like an ignorant person, has fewer choices and less freedom than an
educated one.
Labeling of foods is not done for the
convenience, market share or profit margin of the manufacturer, and it is
a very different matter from advertising, which has more to do with
persuasion than with edification. Some food manufacturers are able to use
labeling in a positive manner, where the ingredients themselves act as
advertising, because they want consumers to know what is in the product
they sell. Usually these are certified organic foods. The actor Paul
Newman’s high profile line of organic foods is, perhaps, the best known
example of this in the United States.
Whenever a company is reluctant to disclose
a complete list of ingredients on the foods they sell, it should raise the
suspicions, interests and attention of the consumer. Monsanto, for
instance, is in the midst of a long and intense campaign to keep the
information off the labels that a food has been genetically modified.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are hailed by industry giants like
Monsanto as the great solution to the world’s agriculture problems. They
claim GMOs are safe and environmentally friendly. Not everyone, however,
is convinced that fish genes inserted into tomatoes and strawberries to
make them resistant to cold, or genes locked into soy beans and corn to
make them herbicide tolerant are safe for either humans or the
environment. No matter what the scientists who work for Monsanto say they
know of GMOs, they do not know what the long term effects will be of
loosing mutant genes into the environment and into the bodies of human
beings. If they were confident that genetically modified foods were
completely safe for people and the environment, Monsanto would have no
reason to oppose honest and complete labeling.
The GMO labeling controversy is a bigger
item in Europe than in the United States, and is a subject of heated
debates there. Because of those debates, it is likely that genetically
modified foods in Europe will be labeled as what they are. The American
apathy toward paying attention to the labeling of foods, like the American
apathy toward the political process and voting, has consequences. Bill
Lambrecht writes that "European consumers like labels and pay close
attention to their food source." There are reasons for this. One of
them is the gruesome debacle of Mad Cow Disease, which has killed people
in Britain and France, and has contributed to a climate of growing public
distrust of the food industry in general and food biotechnology in
particular. A broader cultural reason is that Europeans tend to view
dining as a time to savor and socialize, while North Americans tend to fit
in dining around a busy work and family life. Gastronomically, the balance
of trade between Europe and American is one of quality and appreciation
for speed and efficiency. In Ketchum. we dine at Piccolo, Evergreen
Restaurant, Michel’s Christiania or any number of other fine restaurants
when we wish to savor the experience of eating. In Paris, we can gobble
down bio-engineered French fries and instantly prepared hamburgers between
visits to the Louvre and a bit of on-line stock trading.
The American passiveness toward the foods
we ingest is both ignorant and dangerous. Consumers who accept the premise
that Monsanto knows what is best for them deserve what they get. Consumers
who wish to know whether their soy beans are part pesticide and whether
their strawberries are a bit fishy, deserve and should demand truthful
labeling on all GMO altered foods.
Such demands begin at the local market and
work their way up the line to the Food and Drug Administration and,
eventually, to Monsanto and the other multinational corporations that
control the bulk of the food sources of the world.
Eaters of the world, insist on knowing what
you eat.
