Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods
The challenge is to satisfy consumers' desire for information at a reasonable cost.
 |
Whether or not to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is likely to be the hot topic in food biotechnology over the next year. The issue has already surfaced several times in Colorado. A bill requiring mandatory labeling was introduced in the Colorado legislature in 2001, but died in committee. There have also been unsuccessful attempts to place citizen initiatives on the ballot, both statewide and in the city of Denver. Similar efforts are expected in 2002. |
Current policy
The Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GE foods
only if the food has a significantly different nutritional property, or
if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to
be present. Early in 2001, the FDA proposed voluntary guidelines for labeling
food that does or does not contain GE ingredients (see Table 2). FDA is
still accepting public comment on these guidelines at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html.
Table 2. Examples of voluntary labeling under proposed
FDA
| Wording on label | FDA comment |
| GMO free Not genetically modified |
Not recommended. “Free” implies zero content, which is nearly impossible to verify. “Genetically modified” is an inappropriate term, in that all crop varieties have been modified by plant breeders. |
| We do not use ingredients produced using biotechnology. | OK |
| This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered. | OK |
| This cantaloupe was not genetically engineered. | May be misleading, because it implies that other cantaloupes may be genetically engineered. Currently, there are no such varieties on the market. |
| Genetically engineered | OK |
| This product contains cornmeal that was produced using biotechnology. | OK |
| This product contains high oleic acid soybean oil from soybeans developed using biotechnology to decrease the amount of saturated fat. | OK. The underlined part is mandatory because it indicates a nutritional change. The rest is voluntary under the proposed guidelines. |
Issues in mandatory labeling
Although mandatory labeling of GE ingredients may appear to be a straightforward
measure, there are several complex issues that would have to be resolved
prior to implementation.
What specific technologies for crop variety development
would require a label?
The target of most labeling efforts is food products that have been genetically
engineered, that is, they contain genes artificially inserted from another
organism. However, some legislative efforts have defined the term “genetically
modified” more broadly to include an array of techniques that were in
use by plant breeders well before the GE era.
What percentage of a GE ingredient must be present in
a food before a label is required?
One percent is a figure that is commonly proposed, but figures ranging
from 0.1 to 5% have also been suggested.
Would meat and dairy products derived from livestock
fed transgenic crops require a label?
Some labeling proposals include these products among those that would
require labels, yet the biological rationale for doing so has not been
demonstrated, that is, DNA or protein from inserted genes have not been
found in livestock products.
What is the economic impact of labeling?
The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print
the label. Accurate labeling would require an extensive identity preservation
system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer
to retailer (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000. AgBio Forum, www.agbioforum.org/
in Vol. 3, no. 4). Testing would have to be done at various steps along
the food supply chain. A recent study commissioned by the Canadian government
estimated mandatory labeling would require a 10% increase in food prices.
This would mean, for example, that a package of tortillas costing $1.50
would increase to $1.65.
Pro-labeling arguments
- Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised.
- Surveys have indicated that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling (although the surveys generally do not specify the effect on food prices).
- To date, 22 countries have announced plans to institute some form of mandatory labeling (Phillips and McNeill, 2000. AgBio Forum, http://www.agbioforum.org/, Vol. 3, no.4). The U.S. could follow their lead in handling the logistics of product separation.
- For religious or ethical reasons many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.
Anti-labeling arguments
- Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
- Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Persons at lower income levels would be the most affected by an increase in the cost of food.
- Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot include GE ingredients above defined threshold levels.
- The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
- Consumers wanting to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes.
Additional information resources
Food and Drug Administration. Report on consumer focus groups on biotechnology.
. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html.
AgBio Forum, http://www.agbioforum.org/, Vol. 3, No. 4 is devoted to labeling of GE foods.
The Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/VoluntaryLabelingMemo.html, argues against voluntary labeling and in favor of mandatory labeling.
