Most of the time, the creator of the product points out any traits associated with the genes that were introduced during the modification and determines if any part of the modified food has any chance of being toxic or allergenic to consumers. They also look at the nutrients of the modified plant side by side with those of a traditionally bred plant. Fiber, fat, vitamins, proteins and minerals are all compared. A safety assessment is completed, and the FDA’s Biotechnology Evaluation team looks over the report to determine safety and whether the product complies with the law. Federal teams of scientists who are proficient in chemistry, toxicology, genetic engineering, nutrition, and other areas use relevant data to assess the report.
The FDA considers the report complete only when their scientists are completely satisfied with the reported results and assessment and all questions related to the safety or law have been answered. These tests take place over a five to seven-year period. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 108). Along with the FDA, the American Medical Association, which is the largest organization of physicians and medical students in the United States, has found time and time again that genetically modified foods are as safe to consume as any other food.
In 2012, the group stated, “there is no scientific justification for the special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.” (qtd. in Naam). They have also reported that no negative long-term effects have been found or caused by the consumption of genetically modified crops (Naam 121). Consumer fears of GMOs have had a significant impact on the debate of whether to mandate labeling for GMO products. Supporters of mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods say that a label would have no effect on the sales of these products. For example, Vermont became the first state to mandate labeling for foods containing genetically modified ingredients in 2014.
127 our experts are availableright now
Millions were spent in the political battle leading up to the law going into effect in July of 2016. Some equated the labeling to putting a “skull and crossbones” on genetically modified products. Two years after the law’s passing, those same goods are available today and are still selling. In fact, a study has found that Vermont’s mandatory labeling decreased opposition to GMOs by 19% statewide. Although concern over GMOs has decreased in Vermont, it has risen in other states. A nationwide law concerning GMO labeling was passed in 2016, but the details are still in the works and the law is being heavily debated. Supporters of mandatory labeling believe that the data from Vermont indicates there should be no cause for concern (Zhang).
Regarding Vermont’s mandatory labeling laws, Jane Kolondonsky, an applied economist, stated, “We’re finding that both in real world and hypothetical studies, the introduction of a simple disclosure label can actually improve consumer attitudes toward these technologies.” (qtd. in Zhang). One reason Vermont’s law may have lowered opposition to GMOs is that the mandated labeling uses the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering”, which is a statement that is not nearly as familiar to consumers as “genetically modified organism” or “contains GMOs”. At the same time, this disclosure is found in small print on the back of associated products. Wording and placement of these labels is deceiving to buyers.
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard would put a disclaimer on the front of food packaging instead. Even with mandatory labeling in place, there is still a large portion of the population that is against genetically modified foods. The main reason some consumers oppose GM products starts with the idea that what is natural is inherently good along with the idea that humans do not have a great track record of being good for the environment. Combined, these ideas fuel the notion that humans altering crops or animals on a cellular level is morally wrong. This negative bias has made consumers wary of claims made about GM foods not tasting the same or negatively affecting health, even though there is no evidence to support these claims.
In one study, 71% of consumers who were against GMOs made their beliefs clear by indicating that genetic engineering is wrong despite any positive effects. This is clearly a huge marketing issue (Hingston and Noseworthy 125). To determine if labeling GMOs had any impact on whether consumers would purchase them, a survey was conducted in Nebraska that showed pictures of similar products side by side with different types of labeling on them. 52 people participated in this survey. Consumers were shown two pictures of Tropicana brand no pulp orange juice. One picture had a non-GMO label and the other had no GMO related labeling. 71.5% of participants chose the orange juice without the non-GMO label.
When shown three pictures of Miller Brand boneless chicken breasts, 50% chose the packaging with the “organic” label, 39% chose the product without any GMO related labeling, and 11% chose the chicken with the non-GMO labeling. Similarly, three pictures of Smart Balance butter were shown side by side. One had no GMO related labeling, one had organic and non-GMO labeling, and the other had just a non-GMO label. 50% chose the butter without labeling, 32% chose the butter with both organic and non-GMO labeling, and 18% chose the package with only a non-GMO label. These trends continued throughout the survey. All products in this survey had extremely similar packaging and were identical in some cases except for the presence of a “non-GMO” or “organic label”.
From the results of this survey, it was concluded that consumers avoided products that had the acronym GMO anywhere on the packaging, even if it was stating that there were no GMOs contained in that product. Whenever an organic option was available, the majority chose it over the other options. No matter the context, most buyers would avoid products with “GMO” on them. This avoidance comes from the fears the public has about foods that are genetically modified (Spieker). Another study has shown that mandatory labeling of genetically modified products has already had a significant impact on the market. This study has been published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
Researchers studied the prices of sugar from cane and beet around the same time Vermont passed their mandatory GMO labeling law. Price estimates suggested that the price of cane sugar, which is non-GMO, rose while the price of beet sugar, GMO, lowered 13% as compared prior to the law in Vermont passing. (Lusk) Along with the economic studies on how consumer fears affect product sales, scientific studies have been done to put fears of genetic modification to rest. A major fear consumers have when it comes to GMOs is DNA absorption from modified products.
When it comes to this fear, researchers have investigated the safety of consuming transcribed RNA from DNA. Humans eat around .1 – 1 gram of DNA daily from both genetically modified and non-GM foods. DNA is mostly removed during food processing and the rest is digested and destroyed. There has been no indication that digested DNA could be absorbed and bound to human cells or organs (Wendel 93-96). Even though these fears have been proven illegitimate, there are groups still pushing for mandatory labeling. Proposed labeling has come under fire by those who oppose GMOs.
In 2016, President Obama signed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard into law. This standard requires the USDA to impose a labeling process for GMOs created for consumption which have been altered by processes that wouldn’t occur in nature. The law mandates that genetically modified products should have clearly different labels from those required on organic products (Flynn). Although this standard was put into action in 2016, it is still a work in progress. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard requires the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients, directed the agricultural secretary to produce rules for enacting the standard, required the secretary to research challenges that would come with digital methods of disclosing GMOs, and barred states from making their own requirements for labeling. This law will overturn Vermont’s labeling law.
Critics of the standard cite it as being too vague and worry it will not be effective. Groups, such as The Non-GMO Project, are not satisfied with the standard. Most of their concern comes from the option of putting a scannable QR code which would link one to a website detailing the product’s manufacture on goods instead of a label on the front of their packaging. If the law holds up, the USDA wishes to put it in effect by 2020 (Update) Before this national standard is enacted, current rules surrounding the labeling of genetically modified products in the U.S. concern disclosing negative health effects. Since the consensus by scientists has been that these products are not responsible for any adverse effects, labeling was deemed unnecessary.
It has never been required, but pointing out genetically modified ingredients in food has been encouraged federally. While requirements are still being hashed out, the certified organic label provided by the USDA has been the standard for labeling non-GMOs. It is not possible for truly organic products to be made using GMOs. Private groups, like The Non-GMO Project, have also created their own standard for non-GMO product labels (Fisher 80). Even though there is a push for specific labeling, many believe that current labeling provides enough information to consumers and allows them to avoid genetically modified foods if they so choose. Products that do not contain GMOs either have an “organic” label or a “non-GMO” label.
While both indicate the absence of GMOs, these two labels do not mean the same thing. Products touting the non-GMO label can still be produced by conventional methods using pesticides or other environmentally damaging methods. On the other hand, to receive an organic certification, producers must not use GMOs in any part production and must prevent their product from encountering GMOs in any way. Combined, these two certifications cover all foods that are not genetically modified (Brookman). Between these two labels and if consumers are informed upon what they mean, it is easy to avoid GMOs if one prefers. Even if a mandatory label for genetically modified foods comes to pass, buyers will still be left in the dark on how exactly has been produced.
From a scientific approach, mandating the labeling of GMOs won’t indicate how individual products were modified. Genetic engineering covers a multitude of methods for altering the DNA of an organism. Evolution and breeding can be looked at the same way. Organisms that are changed through engineering should not raise more concerns than those changed through breeding or evolution. Genetic engineering is a process that covers gene editing and gene introduction. There is an unending amount of changes that can be done genetically, and a label won’t tell consumers exactly what kind of modification was done. GMOs are defined individually based off their characteristics rather than the process by which they were made (Smith 10-11).
Since each is different, lumping all GMOs together under one label would not actually provide much information. Based off of these facts, special labeling for GMOs would serve little purpose. Consumers should stay informed on the products they are buying and what the labels on them mean. To an uninformed buyer, current labels which contain so much information are meaningless. Unfounded fears should not dictate buying practices when it comes to food. GMOs have been proven repeatedly to be just as safe and healthy as their non-modified variants. Buyers should not be afraid of these products but should look at them as a viable food production method to sustain the future. For an informed shopper, it is easy to pick out genetically modified foods based on current labeling. Whether they chose to buy those products or not is their choice.
