John Sorenson, executive director of worldwide vegetableresearch and production for the Asgrow Seed Co., dramatizedthe issue of labeling food at the Institute for Science inSociety's 1993 Food Biotechnology Conference on Thursday.

Sorenson flashed a slide of the Chiquita banana sticker. Why,he asked rhetorically, couldn't all crops carry similar labels?

Sorenson's company, for example, has engineered a variety ofsquash to protect it against "a gang of four viruses" so ruthlessthat they have destroyed up to 80 percent of this crop. Whynot label this cucurbit?

He then projected diagrams and slides of a distributionalsystem for vegetables and fruits, which looked almost ascomplicated as a nuclear power plant. Crops from differentfarms become hopelessly mixed up at urban distributioncenters as conveyors transport them hither and yon like abunch of vegetable people in a Disneyland for members of theplant kingdom.

Keeping track of what goes where in this system would be adaunting task, said Sorenson.

Calgene Fresh Inc., which plans to label its Flavr Savr tomato aspart of an educational campaign, gets around the problem byvertically integrating distribution. It's a costly enterprise, butone that conference panel member Steven Benoit, CalgeneFresh's vice president for marketing, told BioWorld thecompany could afford because, he implied, the tomato has aconsiderably higher profit margin than Sorenson's squash.(Neither Benoit nor Sorenson would provide cost figures forvertically integrating distribution.)

Sorenson pointed out that altering the distribution system toallow labeling would drive up the cost of all foods. As forinspection, "the technology does not exist to be able to inspectfruits and vegetables and know whether they are geneticallyengineered."

It may seem odd that a people who have swallowed countlessunhealthy junk foods would become concerned enough abouteating flounder genes in a plant to write comments to FDA onits policy statement, issued in May 1992. But 3,500 people --an extraordinary number -- have done so, said JamesMaryanski, the agency's biotechnology strategic manager at theCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

One frequent argument in favor of labeling is that peopleshould be able to choose not to eat genetically engineeredfoods. One reason is that certain people might be allergic toforeign genes that have been inserted into a food. In theory,any protein can cause an allergic reaction. Another issue is thedesire of some people to vote with their pocketbooks againstwhat they see as pernicious development.

"We will not engineer a product with the possibility ofallergenicity," said Sorenson. "I do believe that if there is anallergenicity problem, the trait that was put in will have such astrong value added that it would be able to pay for aspecialized distribution system."

But the market would provide a choice, said Sorenson. TheInternational Organic Standards Board has already proposedexcluding engineered foods from that classification, he said.

However, panel member Michael Hansen, a research associateat Consumer's Union, protested that this would force peopledesiring non-engineered foods into the expensive nichemarkets.

As for the worry on the part of some in the industry thatlabeling genetically engineered foods would stigmatize them, "Idon't think that will be a real issue," said Sorenson.

-- David C. Holzman Washington Editor

(c) 1997 American Health Consultants. All rights reserved.