By Yiqian Ma
The debate over labeling genetically modified food reaches boiling point today as voters in Washington state head to the polls to decide the multi-million dollar issue.
Companies such as Monsanto, General Mills and Whole Foods have contributed nearly $29 million to lobbying organizations, making labeling genetically modified food one of the most expensive initiatives in the state’s history.
In general, product labeling is the most convenient way for consumers to know the ingredients in the food they buy. By checking nutrition labels, consumers can avoid allergens or food with high calories.
Many countries, including the United Kingdom, China and Brazil, have adopted mandatory labeling regulations for genetically modified food. The U.S. and Canada do not label genetically modified foods if the foods have the same ingredients as their counterparts in the grocery store.
The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of genetically modified foods but advised in a 2001 guidance document that labeling should be applied under certain situations:
- When the genetically modified food is significantly different and the existing label is not enough to describe it
- When the genetically modified food has a significantly different nutritional property
- When a genetically modified food contains an allergen.
The FDA proposed voluntary guidelines for labeling food that does or does not contain genetically modified ingredients, as well as an analysis of particular messages and what they might mean to consumers.
| Wording on Label | FDA Comment |
|
Not recommended. “Free” implies zero content, which is nearly impossible to verify. “Genetically modified” is an inappropriate term, in that plant breeders have modified all crop varieties. |
|
OK. The use of bioengineering in production does not mean there is a material difference in the food. The labeling must not express or imply that the food is superior because it is not engineered. |
|
Might be misleading, because it implies that other cantaloupes might be genetically engineered. Currently, there are no such varieties on the market. |
|
OK. The information is simple and not likely to be misleading. Consumers prefer label statements that explain the goal of the technology (why it was used or what it does for/to the food). |
|
OK. The underlined part is mandatory because it indicates a nutritional change. The rest is voluntary. |
The supporters of genetically modified food say that genetic engineering is a new technology to increase crops’ yield and resistance to pests. Opponents, however, argue that it is consumers’ right to be informed of the ingredients in food they purchase.
The two sides met last year on California Proposition 37, an initiative that sought to establish mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. Voters narrowly defeated Proposition 37, with 51.4 percent opposing and 48.6 percent supporting.
In early March, legislators in Florida Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills requiring mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods. Subcommittees killed the bills on May 3, but legislation has already been proposed for the 2014 session.
In June, Connecticut became the first state to pass a law that requires labeling of genetically modified foods. The law, however, does not take effect until at least three other states pass similar legislation.
The PIE Center examined Floridians’ opinions of genetically modified foods as part of its upcoming fourth public opinion survey looking at food production. Assistant Professor Joy Rumble led the research, which also looks into residents’ opinions of food safety and food security. The results will be published on Dec. 3, and Rumble will co-host a webinar on Dec. 4.
