If "GMOanswers" has a core principle that the people have the "right to choose", why do the "partners" of GMOanswers spend lots of money to prohibit GMO labeling?

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Thursday, 26/12/2013 18:07

Cathleen Enright, executive director of the Center for Biotechnology Information, answered a similar question about labeling and the five core principles of GMO Answers. The original response is available here, and an excerpt is included below.

We absolutely do support the right of consumers to choose food that is healthy and nutritious. And although we do not sell food products directly to consumers, we support food companies’ decisions to voluntarily label food products for the presence or absence of GMOs, based on their customers’ choices.  This type of marketing claim is often used to promote one type of product over another and is unrelated to health or safety. Some companies have opted to voluntarily label food as “USDA Organic” for their consumers who opt for food that is not made with GMOs.

We do support mandatory labeling of food, including GM food, if such food presents a safety risk to a certain population—for example, those allergic to a food ingredient. But there has never been any evidence linking a food-safety or health risk to the consumption of GM 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 GM foods on the market are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts (see FDA information here). A few studies have asserted that such a risk exists, but each of these studies has been found not to be credible, essentially “debunked” by the global scientific community.

Examples can be found here:

• Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Séralini (original paper, rebuttals and official retraction)

• A comprehensive letter to the editor requesting a "serious reconsideration of the recent paper by Seralini et al." signed by scientists from all over the world
• Nature: Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny: Food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats

• Science Media Centre: Study on cancer and GM maize – experts respond
• Discover Magazine: When Media Uncritically Cover Pseudoscience
• Response of the Glyphosate Task Force to the study published in the journal Entropy

As believers in GM technology, and having seen the benefits nurture farmers and society alike (check out "GMOs and the Future of Agriculture"), we believe the harm comes from a label that conveys to consumers that food made from farmers' crops grown with our seeds is somehow less safe or nutritious than or somehow different from conventional or organic food. This is simply not the case. We believe a government requirement to label a food "GM" would do just this, and a 2013 study conducted by an MIT professor supports this view [see "Policy and Inference: The Case of Product Labeling"].

As for your question about the coalition’s past lobbying efforts, you might be interested in a response provided by Naomi Stevens, global head of market acceptance for seeds at Bayer, 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 that provide consumers with information relevant to the 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 (I-522) mandate special food labels and signs for foods containing GM ingredients when they are sold in supermarkets but exempt restaurants from providing the same information about GM ingredients in their foods. 

Additionally, foods imported from foreign countries would be exempt if manufacturers simply claimed they were 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 publicly 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 “USDA Organic” if they choose.

With specific regard to California’s Prop 37 labeling initiative, take a look at this response from Neal Van Alfen, professor at UC Davis; an excerpt is included below.

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 used only to provide information that may be important for consumers to make food choices regarding ingredients known to affect their health.  Many studies and years of experience with people's consumption of GMOs indicate 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 used only when health-risk choices must be made by consumers?  We should not compromise the integrity or credibility of our food-labeling system by requiring a warning, when there is no credible scientific evidence of adverse health effects 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, which help consumers select or avoid foods based on their belief systems. 

And this answer, provided by Cathleen Enright, executive director of the Center for Biotechnology Information, specifically addresses Washington’s I-522 labeling initiative; an excerpt is included below.

[W]e support voluntary, market-based labeling. It’s also important that any label be consistent and science based.

I-522 is a Washington State initiative that does not meet those criteria.  It isn’t market-based or voluntary and certainly isn’t based on science.  In addition, I-522's poorly written requirements and special exemptions would provide inconsistent and misleading information to consumers about the foods they buy. These are the reasons many of our member companies are part of a broad and growing coalition of Washington scientists, doctors, family farmers, food producers, grocers, businesses and citizens who oppose I-522. To learn more about the coalition’s perspective, visit www.FactsAbout522.com.

Lastly, in this response, Gregory Conko, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, explains that those who wish to avoid GMOs can already do so without compromising the labeling system currently in place. An excerpt is included below.

Some consumers wish to avoid foods with genetically engineered ingredients, so food producers have increasingly responded to this market demand by labeling food products that do not contain them. There are many thousands of voluntarily labeled, non-GE foods available in grocery stores throughout the country, in stores as varied as Whole Foods Markets and Walmart. From just 2000 to 2009, nearly 7,000 new food and beverage products were introduced in the United States with explicit non-GE labeling. And those numbers continue to grow.

In addition, groups ranging from Greenpeace to the Organic Consumers Association to the Non-GMO Project have created websites, print pocket guides, and even smart phone apps that help shoppers identify “GE-free” products. And certified organic foods may not be produced with genetically engineered ingredients. So, in cases where a “GE-free” labeled product is unavailable, shoppers can choose certified organic products instead. In short, consumers have at their disposal an abundance of information directing them to affirmatively labeled non-GE products, providing ample choice in the marketplace.

Countless scientific organizations agree that foods that contain GE ingredients are no less safe, no less nutritious, and no less healthy than foods that do not. In fact, in some cases, GE ingredients have been shown to be safer, more nutritious, or both. So, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require blanket labeling of all GE ingredients. The FDA’s policy requires specific labeling if, and only if, the composition of those foods differs significantly from that of their conventional counterparts. Material differences would include, among other things, the introduction of an allergen that is not present in the new variety’s conventional counterpart, a reduction or increase in nutrients or even a change in the product’s taste, smell, texture or expected storage or preparation characteristics.

Most importantly, FDA policy requires that the change itself must be identified on labels, not the breeding method used. After all, if you want to alert consumers to the presence of a potential allergen, or to a tomato that contains more or less vitamin C, saying only that genetic engineering was used to develop the plant or animal variety conveys no useful information. Many consumers are unaware of the FDA’s current labeling policy, but when they are told about it, one finds broad support. In a series of polls commissioned by the International Food Information Council, respondents were first read a summary of the FDA policy and then asked their opinion. In every one of the 17 surveys, conducted between 1997 and 2013, a majority of respondents agreed with the FDA’s approach.

Some GE labeling advocates say they have a right to know what’s in their food. But genetic engineering is not a thing that’s in the food. It is simply one of many breeding methods used to modify plants and animals at the genetic level. The very purpose of all breeding is to modify an organism’s genetic composition and expression, in turn changing the food product’s characteristics. So, even if consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, the FDA’s current policy is better at supplying that information than a label simply saying “Genetically Engineered.”

If you have additional questions after reviewing these posts, please ask.