GM Food Labeling: An Unfinished Battle

By Kuei-Jung Ni

In Washington state, a proposal (Initiative 522) to require labeling of genetically modified (GM) or engineered (GE) foods was defeated recently by votes of 45.17% in favor and 54.83% against. The state law would have implemented mandatory labeling requirements on food composed of 0.9% or more of GM ingredients, measured by weight. Prospects for passage of the proposal were quite promising when it was first introduced. But, the scenario shifted when GM food companies, including General Mills, Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Monsanto, etc., launched a multi-million dollar advertisement campaign challenging the justification for GM labeling.

The downfall of the proposal, while disappointing consumer groups, is not likely to stop the labeling movement. Actually, there have been many other attempts to regulate GM foods on a state level. California Proposition 37, which would have imposed labeling requirements similar to the Washington proposal, was put to a vote last year, but failed to pass. According to Just Label It, a NGO, more than 20 state laws were introduced about GM labeling this year.

Many scientists trust the safety of GM foods, and the benefits brought by the development of GM agriculture are obvious. GM crop production can reduce the use of pesticides and enhance yields. By contrast, in addition to possible new allergies caused by the consumption of GM foods, some worry about their potential harm to the environment and ecological system. On the federal level, three agencies are competent to regulate GM crops and foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which use existing rules to regulate. Yet, the inadequacy of their oversight has been disclosed. Until now, no specific federal law has been enacted to regulate GM food production and consumption.

Labeling is a useful tool to convey necessary information about products to consumers and to keep the public well informed. As ban or restriction on GM food production appears infeasible, especially in the U.S., labeling of foods processed with GM methods is a modest and acceptable approach. As specified in I-522, over forty countries mandate disclosure of GM ingredients on food labels. GM food producers favor a voluntary label. The question is how to induce them to apply this kind of label as consumers are increasingly wary about the safety and possible harmful effects of GM products. Of course, consumer groups support the mandatory labeling. But, the legitimacy of a mandate remains subject to question so long as there is no dominant scientific evidence that can prove that the food is not safe. Moreover, critics say the I-522 and P-37 were poorly designed, misleading and lacked transparency.

The failure to adopt a compulsory GM food label scheme in Washington will not end the fight between proponents and opponents. Yet, a state-by-state struggle between the two is unreasonably costly. Proper labeling standards on a national level should be formulated. Actually, GM food producers may also support the approach, hoping the federal standards may appease the endless and expensive campaigns. Of course, both sides may not agree with each other regarding the content of the national approach. Nonetheless, the federal efforts, among others, of GM labeling are worth pursuing. A proper balance needs to be struck to preserve the public’s right to know in one hand and not to impede normal biotech developments on the other.

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff

The Petrie-Flom Center staff often posts updates, announcements, and guests posts on behalf of others.

0 thoughts to “GM Food Labeling: An Unfinished Battle”

  1. Oversimplified
    The debate over GE crops and food, at least within the scientific community has been over for some time. While Ni suggests “many scientists trust the safety” of GM foods, this is not true. The overwhelming evidence and consensus within the scientific community is that GE crops are safe. He makes some references to new allergens, once again, references please, as there are no documented cases, none in the peer reviewed literature (high impact journals please, rigorous science) at all. Countless national science societies have position papers, all supporting the safety and benefits of GE crops. The regulatory framework is broken. It can take 10 – 20 years to bring Golden rice to market, but if you accomplished the same traits in rice using conventional techniques, you could sell it tomorrow, without any regulation or oversight. The conclusion from the scientific community is to regulate the traits, not the technique. When a new drug is submitted to the FDA, the FDA does not question the PCR, the recombinant DNA techniques used to produce the drug, and yet the debate around the world centers on these same techniques used in developing specific traits in crops/plants. There needs to be regulation, regulation of the traits, not the technique.
    Ni states “Labeling is a useful tool to convey necessary information about products to consumers and to keep the public well informed.”
    What if the consumer is not able to understand, to comprehend the information? Instead, as Daniel Kahneman would say, they use a heuristic, I don’t understand genetic engineering, I am in no position to do so, so system 2 yields to system 1, GM = unsafe, GM = risk. Ideology, fear, and ignorance drive the forces behind the labeling movement. These are powerful forces.
    Some open ended questions to ponder:
    What would be the impact of GMO labeling? Who are the winners and losers?
    What structural changes in industrial farming would result from GMO labeling? what would the environmental impacts be of this change?

  2. “the benefits brought by the development of GM agriculture are obvious. GM crop production can reduce the use of pesticides and enhance yields” I beg to differ. The latter has only been proven under very narrow conditions and the use of pesticides is only a fleeting gain, as usually genetic drift both on the side of the attackers as well as the crop itself puts an end to that rather quickly. By that time these plants though have cross-pollinated. The case for labelling may be weaker than against the spread of unwanted genes to neighboring fields, but in both cases it shows that the industry can only win as long as they can stack the decks. Nowhere has GMO been accepted by the public by any considerable margins. This will only stop if they are put behind bars for fraudulent advertising as the laws covering that are already long in place.

  3. Dear Mr Strong:
    Thank you for the comments, which may complement the post by adding useful information on GM process. I am not a scientist. I want to reveal the controversy surrounding the Washington I-522 and to highlight the urgency of engaging in national (federal) deliberations about GM food labeling. No labeling is perfect. A well-structural and balanced labeling serves the right to know. It’s beyond the authority’s capacity to ensure whether their choices are meaningful or not.

  4. Thank you for the comments, which may complement the post by adding useful information on GM process. I am not a scientist. I want to reveal the controversy surrounding the Washington I-522 and to highlight the urgency of engaging in national (federal) deliberations about GM food labeling. No labeling is perfect. A well-structural and balanced labeling serves the right to know. It’s beyond the authority’s capacity to ensure whether their choices are meaningful or not.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.