Let’s Talk Labeling

One of the hottest topics in the food industry right now is whether or not foods containing ingredients derived from GMOs (genetically modified organisms) should require a mandatory label.

In general, those pushing for mandatory GMO labeling don’t believe there’s enough evidence proving their safety and, therefore, consumers have a right to know when they are present in their food.

In contrast, those in favor of a voluntary labeling approach point to the many studies and health organizations that affirm the safety of GMOs and the fact that there isn’t any scientific evidence to suggest ingredients derived from GMOs are more or less risky than their conventional counterparts.

In agreement with that logic, I personally believe GMO labeling should be voluntary and subject to a federally defined standard.

There’s Nothing to Hide!

Proponents of mandatory labeling seem to think opponents like me just don’t want people to know what’s in their food. That’s not true at all! I have no problem with companies choosing to label their products that contain ingredients derived from GMOs. I just don’t believe it should be mandatory. In fact, I’d buy a product with a GMO label over one without because I’m aware of the benefits this technology has provided to farmers and the environment.

While the labeling issue seems like it should be fairly black and white (either let us know what’s in our food or don’t!!), there are many things to consider.

Federal vs State – Compliance and defining a “GMO ingredient”

You may have noticed (possibly to the point of annoyance) that I’ve been using wordy variations of the phrase “ingredients derived from GMOs” instead of just “GMO ingredients.” That’s because right now, there’s no consensus on the definition of a “GMO ingredient.”

The obvious definition would be anything derived from a GMO is a GMO ingredient. However if that’s the case, there’s also the need to consider less obvious products made possible through genetic modification techniques, such as some cheeses and vitamins. Yet if the purpose of the label is to truly inform the consumer of something distinct about the product, this definition won’t work in all cases.

For example, in the case of highly processed ingredients, (sugar, corn syrup, oil, etc…) it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between those derived from a conventional crop and those derived from a GM crop. That’s because any defining genetic material is degraded in the production process.

If the ingredients can’t be distinguished and the very thing that makes a GMO a GMO can’t be detected, what exactly would labeling these products tell you?

In my opinion, the only relevant way to label a product as containing GMO ingredients (that would actually provide information to the consumer) would be to label only products that actually have detectable amounts of distinct GM material in them.

The lack of a standardized definition (and the potential for 50 varying ones) is one of the problems with allowing states to determine their own GMO labeling laws.

Vermont has already passed a mandatory GMO labeling bill that will go into effect in July. One of the inconsistencies of this law is the long list of exempted products, including beer and cheese (curiously some of Vermont’s staples.) Another exemption is any processed food containing meat. This creates an odd scenario where, for example, Campbell’s Spaghetti O’s without meatballs will require a GMO label while Campbell’s Spaghetti O’s with meatballs will not.

Now imagine 50 other laws with their own rules, definitions, and exemptions. Besides the fact that Vermont’s law is hardly very consistent or informative, another one of the problems with state-by-state labeling is it’ll be increasingly difficult and complicated for food manufactures to comply with.

Under Vermont’s law, any products not adhering (intentionally or not) to their law will incur a $1,000 fine per product, per day.  The Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food offers a great detailed explanation of these complications and their estimated costs.

A common sense, federal solution is the only practical solution to labeling I see.

Mandatory vs Voluntary

As a consumer myself, the number one reason I’m against the mandatory GMO labeling is I believe such labels should be reserved to alert us of health and safety concerns. We certainly have a right to know if something in a product could be damaging our health.

In fact, that’s why the FDA requires nutrition and ingredient labels on most products. This mandatory label stemmed from consumers needing to be aware of certain information pertaining to their health and safety. For example, monitoring cholesterol intake or avoiding foods containing allergenic ingredients.

Another example of this is the requirement for tobacco companies to have warnings on their packages about the negative health impacts of their products. By contrast, over the past twenty years of GMO production there hasn’t been a single instance of harm linked to their consumption. Indeed, as Jon Entine so eloquently stated in his article for Forbes, “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study.”

Absent health or safety concerns, any additional information a company may wish to include on their packaging (so long as it’s truthful) is, and should remain, voluntary. It’s always been up to companies to decide how to adjust to consumer demands and I consider GMO labeling to fall under the category of marketing claims. Examples of voluntary marketing labels are claims such as “Contains 50% less sodium!” and the “USDA Organic” and “Non-GMO Project Verified” seals.

Campbell’s Soup is an example of a company that has already chosen a voluntary labeling approach. While I don’t agree with their support of mandatory labeling, I applaud them for taking a clear and solid stance for the safety of their ingredients derived from GMOs. Campbell’s has proven exactly how well a GMO label can work in a marketing strategy.

By choosing to add a GMO label to their products and by supporting mandatory federal labeling, they’ve gained praise from major labeling proponents such as Just Label It and US Right to Know. However, by also affirming their belief in the safety of their GMO ingredients, they’ve gained a nod of approval by opponents as well.

Consumers like me who support the safety of GMOs will continue to buy Campbell’s products with their new GMO label, while those who are weary of GMOs will likely just opt for Campbell’s alternative organic options. Campbell’s has gained consumers’ trust and confidence without having to remove ingredients or change their preexisting product lines. Genius!

So with the health/safety argument falling flat due to lack of credible evidence, and many ingredients containing no genetic material, what is the compelling evidence for mandatory GMO labeling?

Consumers’ Right to Know

Despite the claim that 90% of consumers want foods containing ingredients from GMOs to be labeled, voters in many states such as California, Washington, Colorado and Oregon have voted down proposed legislation that would require these labels. In fact according to a different survey, it turns out when consumers are asked open-ended questions, 74% are already satisfied with the amount of information provided on packaging and only 4% mention wanting information on whether or not the ingredients in a product were derived from GMOs.

In all honesty, a consumer’s right to know what’s in their food is the only argument mandatory GMO labeling proponents have to stand on. The problem is, no one is disagreeing with them about that. The dispute is whether or not misinformed consumers with fears driven by groups with ulterior motives should be able to dictate regulations and policies. I believe this could set a terrible precedent.

Conclusion

The GMO labeling issue is deceivingly complex. The best way to navigate this dilemma is to find a solution that proves concise and informative to consumers, prevents the addition of unwarranted burdens on food manufacturers, and protects the rights of farmers to continue utilizing the best technologies available. I believe to accomplish this the federal government needs to devise a national labeling standard and, absent any demonstrated risks unique to the consumption of ingredients derived from GMOs, I also believe choosing whether or not to label these products should be voluntary.

The labeling issue is currently on-going and a proposed solution is being addressed in the Senate as early as March 1st. In the meantime, consumers shouldn’t feel like they are being left in the dark or be afraid of current labeling laws as they stand. The FDA actually already has guidance for the labeling of GMO products that are substantially different from their conventional counterparts. Rest assured if there was a valid reason for products with GMOs to be labeled, they would be.

PS: Despite what you may have heard or assumed, Monsanto is not against GMO labeling. They side with others in the industry in finding a national, voluntary solution.