I recently watched an old episode of The Simpsons in which Mr. Burns decides to run for public office.  As the crotchety owner of the nuclear power plant, Mr. Burns must overcome his naysayers by denouncing their claims that his power plant is an environmental polluter.  In the last chapter, Mr. Burns is scheduled to dine with the Simpson family – a meal with the common man to boost his likability.  While Homer Simpson, a power plant employee, has fervently jumped on the Burns bandwagon to protect his job, his wife Marge and daughter Lisa are strong anti-Burns advocates.  Not being one to quietly stand aside and allow Burns and his media circus to exploit her family, Marge retaliates in the only way she knows how – by serving Mr. Burns a three-eyed fish from the very lake he denies polluting.  Burns hesitantly puts a forkful of fish in his mouth, and moments later, spits it across the room in glorious slow motion.  The following days headline reads “Burns Can’t Swallow Own Story”.

The episode reignited my ire at the government’s refusal to mandate “Non-GMO” labeling.  For some reason the people we voted into public office can’t seem to keep our best interest in mind when faced with the mighty biotech industry lobbyists.  Maybe they don’t want to admit that unleashing unregulated GMO’s on the unwitting public was perhaps a rash idea.  Maybe they are afraid to look so closely at their own diets.  Or maybe they are secretly trying to poison us as a means of population control (insert menacing finger roll and evil chuckle).  I don’t know the reasoning, but I do know that they have been dragging their feet on the issue despite the fact that all of the European Union, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries all require the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, and according to some statistics, 9 out of 10 Americans are in favor of labeling GMO products.

In a January, 2009 press release from the American Farm Bureau, Bill Olson, Director of Federal Government Affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization told a group of farm bureau members that the biotechnology industry remains firmly opposed to the labeling of food products as “biotech-free” or “genetically engineered-free,” stating that such labels wrongly plant the idea with consumers that biotech food products are inferior or pose a health threat.  He also noted that studies have shown that while consumers may say they prefer food to be labeled according to whether it was produced with biotechnology or not, that does not translate into action at the retail level.

Of course, how could our preference for non-GMO products be “translated into action at the retail level” when the absence of labels prevents us from making informed decisions.  If the biotech industry truly believed that, when given the choice, Americans would still purchase GMO products, they should have no reason to fear a simple “non-GMO” label.

By allowing GMO products to enter the food system unlabeled, we are essentially giving the biotech industry a free pass when it comes to the health of the American people.  With no labeling there is no accountability, no way to know who is eating what and in what amounts, and no way to trace the long term long term effects of GMO consumption.

I had high hopes that the Obama administration would usher in a new era of food system transparency.  With all his talk of health care reform, and his clear awareness of the virtues of organic gardening, I had expected swift and powerful action in regards to GMO regulation.  My disappointment at the apparent inaction turned into a growing concern when Obama himself stated that the US would “double support for agricultural development to over $1 billion so that we are giving people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty. … This is not just charity though. These are future markets for all countries, and future drivers of growth.”  If his version of “agricultural development” matches that of previous administrations, then the world can look forward to receiving a generous helping of our GMO crops, and the encouraged use of their companion herbicides and pesticides.

Three-eyed fish anyone?