Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material
Answers

Question

I know this has been asked but has not been answered so please give me a straight answer:

If gmo's are as good as organic produce then please tell me why the biotech industry battles against labelling all foods that contain gmo's?

Submitted by: Awakeaboutgmo


Answer

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Thursday, 26/12/2013 18:57

Several independent and industry experts have provided perspectives regarding the GMO labeling debate. Below are a few excerpts and links that might interest you.

 

This response provided by Neal Van Alfen, Professor at UC Davis, discusses GMO labeling and the importance of maintaining the credibility and reliability of the regulatory system; an excerpt is included below:

 

This seems to be a fair and reasonable request­ to know how our food was created.  Food is already labeled with its ingredients when it has been processed, and warnings are sometimes included on labels.  So, why not let the consumer know if any of the components of the food were GMOs? The reason food is not labeled as containing GMOs is that mandatory food labeling is only used to provide information that may be important for consumers to make food choices regarding ingredients known to affect their health.  After many studies and years of experience with consumption of GMOs there is no credible evidence that there is a health risk associated with eating GMOs……

  

Is it then fair and reasonable to require mandatory labeling to warn consumers that food contains GMOs when this labeling system is only used when health risk choices must be made by consumers?  Without evidence that GMOs are a health risk we should not compromise the integrity or credibility of our food labeling system by requiring a warning when there is no credible scientific evidence for adverse health effects being associated with the consumption of GMOs.

 

Foods can be and are labeled to help consumers make choices, but such labeling is voluntary. Common examples are kosher and halal labels that help consumers select or avoid foods based on their belief systems. 

 

David B. Schmidt, President and CEO of the International Food Information Council (IFIC) & Foundation, provides additional commentary on this subject in this response, excerpted below:

 

While I can’t speak for the biotech industry, there is an important principle at stake in many of these ballot measures.  Activists and elements of the organic and natural food industries are spending millions of dollars to stigmatize conventional and biotech foods in order to promote their niche products that are generally sold to consumers at a higher price.  In essence, they are creating fear with unproven, outlandish allegations in order to get unsuspecting consumers to avoid affordable, safe and wholesome foods, in hopes that they can sell you their niche product at a higher price and profit for them. If regulators allowed this to happen with biotechnology, there could be no end to the types of safe food and agriculture technologies that could be unfairly banned or stigmatized by false accusations and innuendo rather than scientific consensus.  The success of American commerce, admired around the world, is a level playing field based on facts and fairness, and our regulators help ensure that remains constant.

 

Additionally, Cathleen Enright, Executive Director of the Center for Biotechnology Information, discusses why labeling GMOs would lead to heightened misperception and confusion among consumers about the food they purchase in this response. An excerpt is included below:

 

We are often accused of being against labeling.  We are not.  If any food, including GMO food, presented a safety risk to a certain population, for example those allergic to a food ingredient, we most certainly would support a mandatory label on that food alerting consumers to this concern. But this is simply not the case. There is no evidence linking a food safety or health risk to the consumption of GMO foods.  There are hundreds of independent studies that demonstrate this (Check out independent studies at BioFortified) in addition to the determinations from scientific and regulatory authorities around the world that GMO foods on the market are as safe and nutritious as their non GMO counterparts [See FDA information here].  There have been a few studies that have asserted such a risk exists but each of these studies has been found not to be credible by the global scientific community.

 

We support the right of consumers to choose food that is healthy and nutritious.  As believers in GM technology, and having seen the benefits accrue to farmers and society alike (Check out GMOs and the Future of Agriculture:), what we cannot support is a label that conveys to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious or different from conventional or organic food.   We believe a government requirement to label a food “GMO” would do just this.

 

We also recognize that GM technology is but one tool that will be needed to feed a burgeoning population using less land and fewer resources in the face of increasingly severe weather.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that by2050 we will need to double our cuFrrent agricultural production, with seventy percent of this needed increase coming from new, efficient technologies.  In this regard, we support any agricultural production method that will help us to achieve global food security by 2050.  You will never see us oppose organic farming, for example.

 

Returning to your question on labeling and letting the market decide, we support voluntary, market-based labeling to promote one type of product over another, including labels for the presence or absence of GMO ingredients.  Currently, consumers wish to choose food that does not contain GMO ingredients, marketing labels such as “USDA organic” and “Non-GMO Verified” are being used by food companies to meet their consumers' demand.

 

You might also be interested in a response provided by Naomi Stevens, Global Head of Market Acceptance for Seeds, Bayer, which addresses the reason biotechnology developers opposed California’s Prop 37 and Washington’s I-522 labeling initiatives, available here and excerpted below.

 

Technology developers including Bayer, together with food companies, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are campaigning against state labeling laws due to the flawed nature of the language being proposed in them.

 

Our industry supports science-based, accurate and informative product labels which provide consumers with information relevant to health, safety and nutrition of their food. Current state GM food labeling proposals include arbitrary requirements and exemptions that do not deliver this.

 

For example, the ballot initiatives in California (Prop 37 defeated) and Washington (I522), mandate special food labels and signs for foods containing GM ingredients when they are sold in supermarkets, but exempts restaurants from providing the same information about GM ingredients in their foods. 

 

Additionally, foods imported from foreign countries would be exempt if manufacturers simply claim they’re exempt.

 

A patchwork of state GM labeling laws creates concerns around interstate commerce of food products. Several State Attorney Generals have already noted this flaw in these proposed GM labeling laws and have publically stated they could be “unconstitutional” if enacted.

 

These are only a few of the flaws that our industry does not support in these state proposed GM labeling schemes.

 

Our current food labeling system in the United States is predicated on “Truth in Labeling” and already provides food manufacturers with the ability to label foods as “organic” or “non-gmo” if they choose.