We all cannot be farmers. For those of us who are not, do you believe we should know what we are eating through labeling? I realize you fear that GMO labeling will reduce your revenues, but shouldn't the lower prices give you free market advantage?

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Thursday, 26/12/2013 18:17

Cathleen Enright, Executive Director of the Center for Biotechnology Information, answered a similar question on GMO Answers. An excerpt is included below.

We agree with you completely―let the market decide. Efforts to pass to laws that require labeling of any foods, including those made with GMOs, is inconsistent with the market “dictating what it wants.”   Rather, it’s using the legislative process to try to gain an advantage in the market place.

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.

The original response is available here.

You might also be interested in a response provided by Naomi Stevens, Global Head of Market Acceptance for Seeds, Bayer, which addresses why 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.

If you have any additional questions, please ask.