GMOs: Point and Counterpoint

As FDA continues to work to push out FSMA rules, such as the proposed Food Defense rule discussed in this month’s Legislative Update (page 6), other issues are beginning to take over the spotlight and demand FDA attention. One, in particular, is the controversy over labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

While many GMO opponents have focused on the environment and health, that is not currently the central concern. Rather the basis of today’s argument over which sides are being taken is the labeling of GMO foods. That is, consumers’ right to know vs. consumers’ full understanding of GMOs; whether such legislation, if sanctioned, should be federally enacted or left to the states; and the impacts of any such legislation on the food industry—and the cost of foods.

Some food companies are already reducing or eliminating their use of GMO ingredients, and voluntarily labeling those with GMOs. This month’s profiled company, Ben & Jerry’s (page 8) is one such company. As published on its website, Ben & Jerry’s “is proud to stand with the growing consumer movement for transparency and the right to know what’s in our food supply by supporting mandatory GMO labeling legislation.” Further, the company gives its status as “currently, in the United States and Canada, 80% of Ben & Jerry’s ingredients by volume are sourced non-GMO. We commit to sourcing non-GMO ingredients for all our products everywhere by midyear 2014.”

While few disagree with transparency in the industry, the counterpoint is that consumers need to be educated on GMO facts. The public is inundated with negative media on GMOs, but a great deal less is published on the benefits, such as those that provide for increased weed-, pest-, and disease-resistant crops; shelf life of foods; global food security; and nutritional value. Thus, the argument is that mandatory labeling without education will drive consumers away from even beneficial foods.

This counter argument additionally asserts that allowing individual states to set their own labeling laws will drive up costs for consumers as the industry attempts to adhere to 50 different laws.

A controversial Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) discussion draft proposal (attained by Politico in January) is recommending that FDA develop regulations for voluntary labeling but require that new GMO foods be submitted to FDA for review and approval prior to being allowed on the market. Additionally, it is proposed that federal regulation would pre-empt any state legislation. (The draft proposal is discussed by QA Advisory Board Member Dr. David Acheson at http://achesongroup.com/2014/01/2014-year-gmos/. The full draft is available at http://images.politico.com/global/2014/01/07/scaned_pdf1.html.)

What the specific ruling will be on GMO labeling is yet to be seen, but with the continued advocacy of labeling, more than 25 states currently considering labeling laws, and Hawaii having passed legislation banning GMO crop growth and biotech companies on the Big Island, the food industry may do well to begin preparing for GMO labeling—and take proactive consumer education into its own hands.

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.