In an effort to lessen trade conflicts between the United States and Europe, the European Parliament has only made the friction worse. As a stipulation of lifting a five-year ban on food products made with genetically altered ingredients, the European Union has opted instead to enforce a new meticulous labeling program, indicating if a product contains 0.9 percent or more genetically modified components.
The labels are predicted to alienate genetically altered products from other products, reducing sales and causing concern for biotechnologists. The Associated Press quoted Jeremy Rifkin, a habitual critic of bio-engineered food.
“I think the European action marks the beginning of the end for agricultural biotechnology,” he said.
And it very well may be. Rifkin and other critics foresee an insurgence of the labels in the United States, giving us something more to read than just the back of the cereal box. Most people usually don’t think twice about the genetic integrity of our food, but with labels glaring at us from grocery store shelves, it may not be so easy to turn the other cheek.
Vice President of Food and Agriculture for Bio technology Industry Organization Val Giddings agrees, saying he expects the labels to have deleterious effects on the sales of genetically modified goods, though he sees it in a slightly more downcast light.
“Rather than facilitating consumer choice, it’s more likely to drive food producers to avoid using genetically improved ingredients,” Giddings told the Associated Press.
Not a happy day for biotechnology. But you have to love his choice of the words “genetically improved.” Is improvement really what genetically modified products means to consumers? The notion is debatable as organic products boast labels proclaiming their lack of genetically altered ingredients as one of the main cruxes of their marketing.
With organizations resisting the labeling enforcement as insistently as the Grocery Manufacturers of America’s Stephanie Childs, it is clear the issue has deviated from one of promoting consumers’ health and the products’ integrity to one of politics. Childs’ assertions to the Associated Press that “It is a black label” and “We have to respond to the market demand” elucidate the issue’s departure from values the label was intended to uphold. Namely, politics has defeated consumer safety and product integrity and has once again come out on top.
So who exactly is worried about the integrity of these products? That is, who’s batting for consumers? Are we to rely on our trusty politicians or biotechnology conglomerates? With both sides pointing fingers, it’s hard to decide.
The European Parliament just has taken actions expected to severely impact international trade with seemingly little regard for trade and the economy associated with biotechnology, though agricultural corporations are defending products cast in a controversial light, while they reap a mighty profit.
CNN cited industry spokespersons relentlessly insisting “Europe’s stand is based more on internal politics than science … biotechnology products are safe, better for the environment than traditional crops and will someday even improve human health.”
So choose your side and choose it well; because before you know it, the “black label” will be staring back at you from your grocery store shelves.