ABSTRACT: Consumer advocacy groups have called for the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients such as Bt corn or RR soy, found in the majority of common processed food items on grocery store shelves. Companies say that such labeling presents an unnecessary expense since these foods are equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. They suggest that those who desire certified non-GM foods should pay a premium for products labeled as such. Scientists in general support the consumers' right to know, but many believe that the label is useful only if the public becomes more educated about what the label does and does not mean.

 
Many consumer advocates have called for the labeling of products containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients as such. They do not argue that these ingredients are necessarily inferior or unsafe (since there are no data to support this claim), but that it is the right of the consumer to know what he or she is purchasing.

Companies that produce the GM ingredients or the processed foods containing these ingredients argue that, because all GM products that pass governmental approval have been shown to be nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts, no special labeling is required. In other words, it's as though they were using just another variety of, e.g., corn or soy.

It is currently possible to purchase food items that are certified not to contain any GM ingredients; since GM crops are not allowed in organic agriculture, consumers who wish to purchase certified non-GM foods can limit their buying to products labeled "organic".

The organic model in fact shares many similarities with the GM foods case. The main similarity is that there are no data to suggest that organic or GM foods are any more or less healthful than their non-organic or non-GM counterparts, but there are belief systems that motivate some consumers to prefer one over the other. The same can be said of Kosher foods. However, while it is generally accepted that manufacturers of organic and Kosher foods are responsible for distinguishing their products from the more common non-organic and non-Kosher foods, the claim is being made that manufacturers of GM foods should be responsible for distinguishing their products from the less common non-GM foods. People who prefer organic foods and Kosher foods pay extra for them, and this in part pays for the added cost of special handling and labeling. People who prefer non-GM foods are willing to pay extra for them, but consumer groups want the manufacturers of standard food products to pay for the special labeling. I believe the reasonable thing is for people who want certified non-GM foods to pay for the label.

Scientists have largely been divided on the labeling issue. On the one hand, providing complete information to the consumer is an extremely important principle. On the other hand, many consumers don't know what to do with the information once they have it. For example, there was a survey I read about (I don't remember the source, unfortunately) in which consumers were asked whether they would buy foods that contained DNA; something close to 40% of the respondants said no, they wouldn't. This, of course, doesn't make sense since almost everything we eat (e.g., any plant or animal) contains DNA.

So while scientists believe in consumers' rights to make their own decisions, there is also a strong sense that it must be an informed decision. And many consumers don't have access to the information that they need, especially information about new technologies such as recombinant DNA methods. Scientists have done an exceedingly poor job of sharing information with and educating the public at large.

And I have found that consumer advocacy groups often fail to provide complete and accurate information to consumers. For example, I attended a teach-in held by East Bay RAGE (Resistance Against Genetic Engineering) in Berkeley, and read some of their literature afterward. Their single-page, double-sided leaflet contained enough errors that I ended up writing more than 5 pages of corrections in response. I don't think the inaccuracies in their handout were part of any intentional attempt to deceive, but rather were the result of receiving inaccurate information from another source and not being able to identify incorrect information.

Consumers have a right to decide for themselves what to buy, but it has to be for the right reason. Philosophical opposition to recombinant DNA technology is an example of a good reason. Most people, however, seek to avoid these products because they have been told that they are unsafe, and that is not as good a reason because there is no evidence that they are any less safe than the other foods we eat. Religious and philosophical objections don't require scientific evidence, but claims of endangered health do. And there is no evidence of any danger.

(September 2003)  

Back to Lou's Foods.