Five University of Maine undergraduates this weekend will present their research and analysis of genetically engineered foods at a prestigious conference in Italy, the first time that work by students has been accepted at the convention. The paper is a noteworthy accomplishment at an international level for the students and a reminder of the ongoing GE food debate here in Maine.

Under the guidance of entomology professor Randall Alford, Bernice Cross of Costigan, Rachel McNamee of Fort Fairfield, Dana O’Day of Parsonsfield, Rebecca Samuels of Arundel and Calah Tenney of Ellsworth collaborated to provide a comprehensive background on genetic engineering in agriculture, and to emphasize the need for an informed consumer market. One important way to be informed is for products that contain GE food to be labeled.

Like most issues surrounding GE, the labeling controversy rests on the unknown – the long-term health effects of gene alteration remain mostly a mystery. Currently, almost 70 percent of packaged foods in the United States contain some form of GE, usually in altered soy or corn products. Proponents of erring on the side of caution cite the example of Procter & Gamble’s Olestra, a fat substitute found in some snack foods. All foods containing the synthetic fat were required by the Food and Drug Administration to list on their labels potential side effects, even though it was deemed safe by the FDA and there was no strong correlation between consumption and sickness. The necessity of the label was more in response to social concern over a new technology – consumers wanted to have the personal choice to either test the food or veer away from it, if for no better reason than preference.

GE labeling advocates are arguing a similar point. Consumers in America need to be informed about the food they consume, especially when a new technology is introduced into the market, and time is needed to prove its legitimacy and safety. Without information, the public can only speculate about the uses and misuses of GE, prompting fear and heedless action like the recent attack on suspicious crops of trees. While more is being learned about the strengths and weaknesses of GE foods, consumers deserve the chance to make their own decisions about what they want to consume. The European Union has adopted this attitude by requiring labels on GE foods, and America should follow its lead as long as the public is uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the nascent technology. The food companies that are so sure GE foods are the best thing since sliced genetically pure bread have a responsibility to show that their products are superior and not simply assume that the public will be content to swallow whatever is put before it. Some positive ways the industry can meet the uncertainty about their new products include substantial information from trusted sources, a serious attempt at educating the public and a recognition that the environment, the future of non-GE foods and consumer choice all matter. The UMaine paper makes the case for getting more and better information to consumers; lawmakers should respond to this sentiment.