A teammate posed a dilemma in the midst of discussing mandated food labels: how was I to reconcile having advocated for education while simultaneously stand to withhold details from grocery shoppers about food they are purchasing?

I believe empowering the public with knowledge is foundational to developing citizens who are adept with shaping their environment into a democratically defined good. And yet, I was preoccupied fretting over the damages that I still believe, with reason, could be incurred by implementing policies which require indication of whether foods are, or come from, genetically modified ingredients. A tool for fear-mongering the imperfectly informed into buying more expensive versions of fare that are named with trendy adjectives. Neither of these arguments—to facilitate enlightened choice, to avoid injuring helpful research and livelihoods through often under-justified disqualification of many foods--are invalid, so how could one develop their position here? They are competing principles, which make it unfailingly difficult to arrive at a judgement in a social justice issue. But perhaps we can try to reconcile both and arrive at a pragmatic course by avoiding certain violation of the former principal and address the risks of the latter--which are in fairness, hypothetical—through provisions: label food which have been genetically modified but regulate this display. It should be easy to find, in a standard, neutral marking that is immune to sensationalism, and afforded only by satisfactory adherence to a rigorous definition of what a GMO actually is.

To be sure, I hesitate to claim this way is best. There are other important arguments at play and I am humbled by the complexity of this issue at a political level. At the level of the individual, it’s pretty simple: do my choices reflect my values, and am I ready to defend them for constructive discussion when they clash with my peers? It is not about a “right to know”. It is about whether this demand for political change allows me to be better accountable as a citizen. CRISPieR is an advancement that will shake things up, and Human Practices in iGEM will ensure we are prepared to be involved in the conversation.

The following arguments rely on the assumption some facts and opinons are shared by the reader: GM-foods are safe to eat (link; I believe this having been convinced with [] as a resource), a “good” reason to reject GM-foods are on the basis of: moral conflict; a belief that current consensus on environmental risks is still at an inappropriate level of certainty; and a belief that purchasing GM-foods is enabling an oppressive power structure.