Dialogue: But will we be able to tell an eggplant from an aubergine?

WILLY TROLOVE* says the labelling of food does not go far enough. Figures of national importance should receive similar treatment.


It's about time. At long last the Government has declared that all genetically modified foods will be compulsorily labelled.

This is a good thing because it will enable you to tell the difference between a genetically modified lettuce and a genetically modified cabbage, both of which, in the future, will look exactly like Dolly the cloned sheep.

But, as always, the Government has failed to go far enough. Not only should genetically modified food be labelled, all food should be labelled. That way we can answer the two most pressing questions that face the modern food consumer: how do I get the most out of my genetically modified food product, and what the heck is an aubergine?

If you were to take a man on the street, show him an aubergine and ask him what it was, chances are that he would mistake it for some equally unrecognisable item such as tofu or spam or, quite possibly, Parekura Horomia.

Even professional food-type persons have difficulty identifying the aubergine. If you were to place 24 such people in a small room and ask them to name this vegetable (or is it a fruit?), 12 of them would call it an aubergine, 11 would call it an eggplant and one would abstain while citing intolerable pressure from the aubergine delegation.

Labelling of food is obviously an excellent job-creation scheme. For many years now we've employed a whole raft of people to grow food and it makes sense that we employ a whole new raft of people to label it. This is great news for raft manufacturers.

There will, of course, be cost implications. Food labelling won't be cheap and price increases will depend on the size of the item. A leg of lamb, for example, can be labelled inexpensively in the field by a well-trained sheepdog equipped with an electric shaver and a felt-tip pen.

Labelling of individual rice bubbles may, on the other hand, prove to be more costly.

Obviously there are a few minor details that need to be sorted out, but once the Government has mastered the art of labelling food, it should take a close look at labelling other items of national importance, such as our sports stars.

For too long now we have recklessly worshipped our national and international sports celebrities without asking ourselves what they get up to in their spare time. Labelling of sports stars will help fans to identify if their heroes are genuine, or if they are, for example, having it off with the bloke from the Sunday Mirror.

Take rugby. Let's imagine that all our rugby players are compulsorily labelled. Before anyone worships, say, an All Black, they could examine the fine print on his label. If it read, "Warning: likely to enjoy himself when he goes out on the town," they could then paste him with vitriol without the All Black having to be manhandled out of Christchurch nightclubs.

The same could apply to cricket. Fans could check the label on their favourite international cricketer in the early stages of a match and if it reads, "Sponsored by Rajiv's Bigtime Bombay Betting Syndicate," they would at least have the chance to put a few bob on the opposing team.

But we shouldn't stop with our professional sports stars.

If our Olympians were labelled in a similar way, it would benefit the athletes and the sporting public. A small panel could be sewn into all Olympic uniforms that reads, "Warning. Despite the fact that you have made it to the very top echelon of your sport against better-sponsored, better-funded and better-trained opponents, you will receive absolutely no recognition unless you bring home a medal."

Labelling of sports stars may, however, bring a few problems for the Government. The voting public could justly demand that MPs should be labelled in a similar manner.

Politicians have long been labelling themselves with grand descriptions such as "the Great Helmsman," "Radical Conservative" and "the Mother of all Budgeters," but recent events suggest that labels should convey considerably more relevant information, such as the precise nature of their sexual activities during the late spring of 1985.

Compulsory labelling will enable the public and the press to identify obscure, unknown or completely invisible MPs, such as the entire National Party caucus.

The label should include each politician's complete history, their total number of convictions (both political and criminal), the number of times they have forgotten those convictions (obviously some labels will have to be quite large), and the frequency with which the bus drove past while they walked to school.

This will give all of us the ability to identify which politicians have had their memories modified, which haven't, and which are probably just aubergines.

* Willy Trolove is an Auckland freelance writer.