Oceans Apart in Precaution.

In May, a women's group in England demanded mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, because its more than 250,000 members "are concerned for the health of their families." Such declarations have become commonplace in Europe, where consumer opposition to transgenic foods has spread rapidly (see this issue's Environmental Intelligence). Major food manufacturers (including Nestle, the world's largest), food retailers (including Safeway), and even fast-food chains (including Burger King) have rushed to ensure that the products they sell in Europe are free of transgenics.

An ocean away, American soil nurtures nearly three-quarters of the global transgenic harvest, and the government seems more facilitator than regulator of the biotech industry. Public discourse on biotech foods has been almost nonexistent, though most of the processed foods in U.S. supermarkets contain engineered ingredients.

But that seeming lack of interest may be changing. In June, an Iowa-based group called Mothers for Natural Law presented President Clinton and the U.S. Congress with half a million signatures demanding "the right to know" if foods are genetically modified.

U.S. regulators, who have relied exclusively on industry's good word for their assessments of human risk, refuse to require labeling of genetically altered foods, arguing that they "are not aware of any evidence showing that these foods are dangerous," according to Jim Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

European officials note, in contrast, that there is no evidence that these foods are safe, since no long-term assessments of health risks have ever been done. Yet, because transgenic foods encode for many compounds that are completely new to the human diet, the induction of allergenicity or toxic reaction is a legitimate concern. A 1996 study, for example, found that soybeans endowed with a Brazil nut gene provoked reactions in people with nut allergies. The transatlantic divide on precaution became evident when the British Medical Association called for mandatory labeling, so that consumers have a choice until such foods are proven safe and so that any adverse effects can be tracked.

As European Union officials - as well as officials in Brazil, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and other nations - begin work on labeling schemes, Americans may wonder why these brave new foods are not labeled in a nation that has always been high on consumer rights and freedom of information. But if anything is to be learned from the European experience, it's that government is unlikely to buck the power of the global agribusiness giants on its own - and it will take nothing less than a consumer mutiny to turn the tide.

Mandatory labeling will restore democracy to the debate on transgenic foods, allowing consumers to vote against foods with ecological and health hazards. Until citizens around the world gain the right to know what's in their food, they should feel free to ask their way up the food chain - from supermarket managers to agribusiness corporations to elected officials - with full assurance that they're going to get a straight answer.