It's My Right: Genetically-Modified Labeling
05/17/2012
States like Connecticut, Washington and California are taking a hard look at labeling food products with genetically modified ingredients, with advocates saying consumers have the right to know. Best Food Facts expert Dr. Peggy Lemaux was interviewed on the subject for a recent NPR story focused on the California initiative.
A spokeswoman for California Right to Know, the group that filed the petition for the state-wide vote, said, "Polls show that nine out of ten California voters agree that they want labeling."
NPR reported that "a new analysis of the labeling initiative suggests that if it passes, it would create a complex mandate for food companies that may make it harder — not easier — for consumers to figure out what's really in their food. That's because the initiative muddies the definition of a 'natural' food."
In fact, 'natural' has not been defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and FDA maintains that foods derived from genetically engineered plants must meet the same safety and legal standards as foods derived from their non-genetically engineering counterparts. Food system experts told us, “The National Academy of Sciences and other leading research institutions agree that GE foods present no unique risks, or greater risks, than non-GE foods. In fact, because GE foods are intensively tested for safety while most other foods are not, GE foods are probably safer than most foods on the market today."
Members of California Right to Know want processed foods or raw ingredients that were produced using genetic engineering to say so on the package, and they don't want those foods to use the 'natural' label either.
In NPR's interview with Dr. Lemaux, she said that 'natural' could be interpreted in two ways:
"One way is that processed foods could be labeled 'natural' only if they are free of GE ingredients." But Lemaux says the initiative could also be interpreted as saying that no processed food can be labeled 'natural,' whether or not it is GE or contains GE ingredients.
Per the interview,
Melkan, of Right to Know, says the initiative merely intended to keep food with GE ingredients from being called 'natural.' "The language is clear that non-GE processed foods could still be labeled 'natural,'" says Melkan.
Per a previous inquiry, we learned that the FDA believes GM labeling is unnecessary because of the rigorous safety tests that GM foods undergo prior to being released for public consumption. FDA maintains that genetically modified food is essentially the same as other food and poses no safety risk. Dr. Lemaux, who has done extensive reviews of the scientific literature on GE foods, agrees with the FDA. Per the NPR report,
"This [labeling measure] is not going offer any additional safety to people; it's really not a food safety issue because there's no real evidence this stuff is unsafe," says Lemaux.
What's more, she says, "the GE and natural labels may scare less savvy consumers away from affordable, healthful foods. And, as we've reported before, Americans really don't understand what genetically engineered food is all about."
If you'd like to read the entire NPR story, click here. In the meantime, stay tuned - we'll be exploring the potential for GM labeling and what it means for consumers and food companies in upcoming posts.
Poll Question: Do you think GM food should be labeled?
Comments
Eileen McLoughlin - 09/22/2012
GMO foods are (I believe) hidden in processed foods and that is why I have abstained from the practice of eating them. What a health difference! When I go back to try something I can immediately tell if it was altered to a state that my body finds not beneficial. I have a reaction. What a blessing to eat from my own garden using nothing but organic practices and organic seeds or seeds I've saved from the year before.
Awake - 06/23/2012
The people that are in control of the FDA have connections with Monsanto. That is a conflict of interest. GMOs are banned in many countries for a reason. But it looks like most people are still content eating their pink slime burgers with cardboard tasting tomatoes slapped on a bun of bleached flour wheat that was doused with pesticides. And the school nurse doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. GMOs are not about "breeding", you are thinking about hybrids. If you can't grow good food naturally you are doing it wrong.
Pradesh - 05/22/2012
I do question the ethics of selling it unlabeled to people who, like me, are not familiar with all the techniques of modification and so I can not give knowing consent even if I wanted. I recently moved here from India and did not know that most of the foods were GMO. After learning about American biotech industry and their non-labeling (and many other dubious practices whic I witnessed myself in India by these biotech companies, many poor farming families have failed to produced the yeilds promised). I decided to boycott those products because I don't believe that this way of going about business is ethical- they have very slick marketing and use local Indian gods as brand names to dupe the farmers into blind trust. The products need labels and I find it unethical to permit individuals to monopolize life in this way (through patents) and essentially control the food supply (also given the biopiracy that has occured -such as the neem plant which has been used for over 2000 years in Ayurveda medicine, and this is just one of the plants taken and exploited in this way). Let me be clear too that I support research being done in this field and don't think that efforts should stop, but ethics and knowledgable consent must be part of that system.
Anonymous - 05/21/2012
Labeling can be confusing plus it can add to the cost. i don't need to pay extra for the same safe food I'm getting now.
Pat - 05/21/2012
Depending on how you define GM foods you could have to label everything as GM, sort of like the results of COOL. If 99% of all the products we consume are GM where is the benefit in that? Although, maybe the best thing to do to educate the public about how ubiquitously safe GM food is!
Concerned Mother - 05/18/2012
I think Americans understand more than we are given credit for. We should have the right to decide if our food is GM or not. Whether it is better for us or not that should be our decision to make. I work in the packing industry and a few changes in labeling would be insignificant. However, the peace of mind would be priceless.
School Nurse - 05/17/2012
Why add increased cost and confusion to healthy nutritious and affordable food? GM (genetically modified) food produces a better product (color, flavor, etc.) using less pesticide (disease resistant) while using our land (more crop per plant) and water (drought resistant) resources more efficiently leading to less cost (let’s keep it that way). GM is basically a scientific way to breed plants or animals for desirable traits in a very precise manner. Breeding has been done for thousands of years to get a better work horse, race horse, fatter pigs (kill runts), and many more. Plus GM foods are more highly tested than other foods leading to self-regulation that prevents unsafe or unsavory food from getting to human consumption. I believe there is already too much “healthy” marketing and GM will just increase the confusion. Low fat but high sodium, all natural but high calorie, 100 calories but still junk food, 100% vitamin C but not much juice, … If we must have GM labeling it should be voluntary. The free market will then allow people will speak with their money without adding more requirements on the food industry. Personally my money will speak... I'll buy GM!