Labeling Of Biotechnology Food Products

Printer Friendly

Issue in Brief:
Mandatory Labeling of Food Products Based on the Method of Production Is Not Justified

The biotechnology industry supports accurate and informative product labeling that communicates to consumers material information relevant to health, safety and nutrition. Misleading label information makes informed consumer choices harder. BIO believes that a system of mandatory labeling of biotech products would confuse consumers by inaccurately suggesting that these products are inherently different or pose safety concerns when compared with traditional foods.

The food products of biotechnology are subject to the same Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements applied to other foods. The FDA's 1992 policy states that there is no reason to conclude that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way or that they present a greater safety concern than foods developed using traditional methods. Its position is that foods should be labeled according to their characteristics, not their method of production. Therefore, FDA does not require special labeling of biotechnology foods or the products of animals fed these foods.

FDA policy does require a label on food products, including those produced using biotechnology, when they pose a potential health or safety risk or when there has been a material change in the food and it no longer substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart. These can include changes in composition, nutritional value or safety. (For more on the concept of substantial equivalence, click here.)

This policy has been supported by a number of scientific groups, including the American Medical Association, American Council on Science and Health, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology and Institute of Food Technologists. A report by AMA, for example, found that "[T]here is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education."

Mandatory labeling would cost consumers more because bioengineered and traditionally bred foods would have to be segregated, or "identity preserved," throughout the entire distribution system. While economical for high-value products like fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and some grains, the cost to segregate commodity products such as corn and soybeans, which are ingredients in 70 percent of processed foods, would exceed the added value of the enhanced trait. Consumers would therefore be forced to pay higher prices simply to cover the cost of getting foods labeled "biotechnology."

FDA allows manufacturers to make voluntary claims about whether their products contain biotech ingredients. Like all product claims, these must be truthful, clear and not misleading. The FDA has developed labeling guidance for food manufacturers who want to place voluntary claims on labels for food with or without biotech ingredients. This guidance is to ensure that labels provide accurate information.

A voluntary system will allow niche markets to develop that will cater to consumers interested in purchasing products produced in a particular way, as in the case of organic foods. Ultimately, consumers will dictate the degree to which food producers segregate and label biotech products.

The current science-based labeling policy informs and protects consumers by giving them material information about the food product. The idea that food crops improved through biotechnology are not necessarily different from their traditional counterparts, the basis of FDA's regulatory policy, has been supported by the National Academies and other prestigious scientific bodies.

The FDA's policy does not just make sense to scientists; it makes sense to consumers, too. A 2002 survey conducted by the International Food Information Council finds that, once it is explained, nearly six in 10-59 percent-agree with the current FDA labeling policy.

This IFIC survey was consistent with the results of a 2002 Oregon ballot initiative that would have mandated special labeling of biotech foods. Despite a huge effort by biotech opponents, the labeling initiative was rejected by voters 72 to 28 percent. The outcome of the Oregon vote confirms that when consumers are presented with the facts about biotechnology and food labeling issues, they agree with the FDA's existing labeling criteria. Consumers also are aware that the new "organic" certification provides choices for consumers who wish to avoid biotech products.

Resources:
Food and Drug Administration:

• Guidance for Industry, Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering, Draft Guidance (January 2001).
• Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology (October 20, 2000).
• "Statement on Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties; Notice," Federal Register May 29, 1992, 57(104): 22984-23001.

• AgBioForum, Public Acceptance of Agrobiotechnology, 1(1), 1998.
  This issue of the online journal is devoted to consumer perceptions and labeling.
• Ag BioTech InfoNet.
  Provides alternative views on the labeling issue.
• American Council on Science and Health, Biotechnology and Food (2000).
  "When there is no discernable difference between two foods, labeling one of them only causes confusion and jeopardizes the value of meaningful labels."
• American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (I-00) Full Text (2000).
• American Public Health Association, Policy Statement, Support of the Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (2001).
  Read the response:
  Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Comments to the American Public Health Association in Response to Its Draft Resolution Regarding Genetically Modified Foods (2001).
  "We have looked for and, to date, have found no health-based or environmental safety reasons to label all foods containing approved products of modern biotechnology . . . ."
• Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.
• Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Science, Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide-Labeling Transgenic Foods.
• Conko G. 2002. Eat, Drink and Be Merry: Why Mandatory Biotech Food Labeling is Unnecessary, Cascade Policy Institute.
• Conko G. 2000. "Labelling and Risk: The Case of Bioengineered Foods," Ecology, Liberty, and Property, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
  "Leaving labeling to private markets encourages firms to differentiate themselves by providing information about their products that actually matters to consumers."
• Elise Golan, Fred Kuchler, Lorraine Mitchell, Cathy Greene and Amber Jessup. Economics of Food Labeling, USDA Economics Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 793 (January 2001). Read the report here.
• Greenpeace International.
• Grocery Manufacturers of America.
  Good source for information on labeling and traceability.
• Institute of Food Technologists, "Labeling of rDNA Biotechnology-Derived Foods," Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods (2000).
  "Labeling initiatives for rDNA biotechnology-derived foods are likely to have substantial effects on the production, distribution, and cost of food to consumers." Labeling chapter, a one-page chapter summary and an IFT backgrounder on labeling available.
• International Food Information Council, U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology (conducted August 2002).
• Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Labeling Genetically Modified Foods: Communicating or Creating Confusion? National policy forum held June 27 in Chicago with consumer activists, food manufacturers and academics on whether to label genetically modified foods.
• Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Knowing Where It's Going: Bringing Food to Market in the Age of Genetically Modified Crops (September 11, 2001). Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and the USDA Economic Research Service.
  A look at identity preservation and other distribution issues.
• The Royal Society, Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use (September 1998).
  "We strongly support mechanisms by which consumers can be informed about developments in biotechnology, including the labelling of foods containing GM material where the equivalence of a food is substantially changed, according to established criteria and provided such labelling is appropriately monitored."
• Evan Schulz. 2000. The Opportunities and Hazards of Agricultural Biotechnology, Economic Strategy Institute Provides a good discussion of voluntary labeling; available here.
• Robbin Shoemaker (Ed.). Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, USDA Economic Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 762 (March 2001).

For more links, click here.

About advertising opportunities