Having read the NY Times article today, I have to wonder and be very very skeptical as to why companies such as Monsanto are so afraid to have fair and open food labeling that requires full disclosure. If you have information you dont want disclosed, you have something to hide. Cloaking this with the argument that people will have the wrong perception is an insult to the American public.....as was the mommy farmer ad idea. Stop trying to prevent open, truthful labeling.

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Thursday, 24/09/2015 18:16

We're glad to hear that you are evaluating your news with a healthy skepticism. In fact, GMO Answers embraces skepticism; that's why we exist: to answer your questions.

We assume you're referring to the New York Times article by Eric Lipton about email records requests for correspondence between academics and food industry related contacts. There are a lot of claims made in that article, but we will address your comment specifically about labeling. If you have additional concerns about the article, we are happy to address those separately.

Labeling has been discussed many times on GMO Answers. You might be surprised to know that our member companies are not against labeling in its entirety. The mandatory labeling of foods with GMO ingredients as previously proposed in legislation poses a few challenges, some in terms of consistency with policy, and some in terms of feasibility to carry out due to logistical issues.

In this response, former Council for Biotechnology Information executive director Cathy Enright discusses how we "absolutely do support the right of consumers to choose food that is healthy and nutritious." We do support companies' decisions to voluntary label food products with the presence or absence of GMOs as their customers’ desire. Two options for voluntary labels that indicate the absence of GMOs are the USDA Certified Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified labels.

When would we support a mandatory GMO label? Enright goes on to explain that we support labeling when any food -- GMO or not -- poses a safety risk to a certain population, such as those allergic to a food ingredient. If someone is allergic to conventional or organic soy, they will also be allergic to the GM soybeans available on the market.  We would also support mandatory labeling if there was a change in the nutritional content of the food. 

Why do we not support mandatory GMO labels? This is a complicated question, but the answer is certainly not to avoid disclosure of GMO ingredients. We believe that GM crops can provide numerous benefits to farmers and consumers, and are an important tool for farmers to have access to, along with tools used in conventional and organic production.

We think there are a few challenges with mandatory labeling currently proposed. Let's explore a few of those:

• First, labeling an ingredient as GMO or not, doesn't tell the consumer much about the product, other than how the crop was made. "GMO" doesn't describe a product; it describes a process. There are many different GM traits and vary from resistance to herbicides, diseases and insects to non-browning traits. 

• If we agree that labels should explain that traits of the GM  crops used to make ingredients, that poses a logistical challenge for food producers. Jennie Schmidt, a registered dietitian and farmer in Maryland, explores the changes in grain storage alone that would need to happen in order to separate GM traits in corn from each other and non-GM traits in this post, "The Cost of GMO Labeling."

With this in mind, we do want fair and truthful food labeling. We support farmer choice, customer choice, and for companies to make the best choices about products for their businesses. 

The seed industry recognizes that we haven't done the best job communicating about GMOs -- how they're used and why they're made. That's why GMO Answers was created. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to engage in this conversation with you, and we invite you to ask any additional questions you might have.