Introduction
by Levi Pulkinnen, Editor-in-Chief
Dear Reader,
Today’s consumer knows less about the food he or she buys and eats than ever before. Unless they subsist entirely on organic foods, American consumers have no assurance that the food they’re eating hasn’t been genetically modified, chemically treated or grown in a manner detrimental to the environment. If not for recent legislation, consumers in Washington would not even know if their produce was grown in the state.
Without knowing, consumers are supporting practices they might condemn if given more information. Money consumers spend on salmon, for instance, may go to fish farmers whose trade puts native stocks at risk — to buy a product that was fed dye to make its flesh pink and appealing. Even milk is often produced using a hormone illegal in most of the world because it endangers cows, farmers and milk drinkers.
There are, of course, solutions. Consumers can protect themselves and the environment by buying local or organic produce. They can frequent restaurants that serve food grown or raised in a humane and environmentally sustainable manner. They can spend more on meat, fish and milk to ensure it is free of antibiotics and hormones.
These solutions have one thing in common: increased cost. It’s a financial burden that some Americans are unable to shoulder.
For many, however, it’s a question of priority, a choice between convenience and their health. It’s a choice most are too poorly informed to make wisely, because the government — the same one that requires warnings on cigarette packs because its citizens have a right to know what’s killing them — has not forced producers to label the products they sell. Though few would argue that an ear of corn is as dangerous as a Camel, the point stands: consumers deserve to know what risks they are taking.
Consumers have the right to know if their food has been genetically altered, irradiated or sprayed with chemicals long illegal in the United States. Mothers and fathers have the right to know if the milk they give their children comes from a cow pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. Americans have the right to express their opinions in the checkout line as well as the ballot box.
Though there are a number of great philosophical reasons to believe in the right to be informed, in this case there is also a simple economic one; the U.S. Department of Agriculture gives agribusiness a lot of money in subsidies — almost $21 billion in 2001. It does so to guarantee America’s food security, a goal that would be furthered by required disclosure.
By requiring subsidy recipients to provide consumers with information on how they treat their product, the USDA would allow citizens to make informed decisions about the future of American agriculture while protecting themselves and the environment. In doing so, the USDA would give farmers unwilling to use potentially dangerous technologies a fighting chance against industry trends toward more-intensive farming practices.
