By: Alison Adkins
In the last several years, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) or BEs (Bioengineered Foods) have increasingly become the focus of public debate and concern, when they appear on the shelves.[i] Following these public debates in 2018, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) adopted a nationalized labeling requirement for all “bioengineered foods” sold in the United States.[ii] The mandatory compliance date for this regulation is January 1st, 2022.[iii] The regulation defines bioengineered foods as any food that “contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and … for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.”[iv] Advocates of this labeling requirement argue that the label provides essential information about the ingredients in food, ingredients many believe to be unsafe.[v] However, the regulation does not provide helpful information to consumers.[vi] Instead, the labels are a costly example of poor science communication.[vii]
Advocates for the labels generally put forward two categories of arguments.[viii] First, bioengineered foods are a recent development.[ix] As a result, we cannot know that they are safe.[x] Second, many people have an ethical preference for natural food, and the required labels help these individuals make choices according to their system of ethics.[xi]
While public concerns about safety should be taken seriously, regulations should be based on scientific data, and the data does not support the safety concerns pro-labeling advocates raise.[xii] Bioengineered foods are safe according to the WHO, the European Union, and the USDA itself.[xiii] Bioengineered foods are also not entirely new as they have appeared on the market for decades.[xiv] Many scientists view modern gene-splicing techniques as more efficient and predictable extensions of older modification techniques.[xv] Given the realities, the required labels do not promote a legitimate safety interest and instead risk stigmatizing safe products with potential environmental and health benefits.[xvi]
The labeling requirement is also ineffective and inefficient for providing information to consumers who may have ethical preferences for foods they consider more natural.[xvii] First, suppose consumers genuinely prefer natural foods. In that case, the bioengineering label does not cover all unnatural development processes, for example, foods such as the “star ruby” grapefruit developed decades ago through atomic gardening (exposing seeds to radiation to induce genetic mutations, then using those seeds to produce new varieties of crops) are not considered bioengineered.[xviii] However, few would argue that this technique can be considered natural.[xix] Additionally, voluntary labeling programs such as the “USDA Organic” label provide those with ethical preferences for natural food the information and transparency they need.[xx] These voluntary labels are also consistent with other labels associated with ethics-based dietary choices, such as voluntary labeling for Kosher, Halal, fair-trade, and vegan foods.[xxi] This consistency would also be achieved without the predicted additional several million in costs that the mandatory labeling program would be expected to incur.[xxii]
Based on these considerations, the mandatory bioengineered label program is a mistake. It stigmatizes bioengineered foods by elevating unsubstantiated safety concerns and increases food costs while providing no more information to consumers with ethical objections to foods they deem unnatural than the current voluntary model.[xxiii]
[i] Behrokh Mohajer Maghari & Ali M. Ardekani, Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns, Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnology (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558185/ [https://perma.cc/PJX2-SGN4].
[ii] National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 83 FR 65814 (Feb. 19, 2019).
[iii] Id.
[iv] Id.
[v] GMOs and Toxic Pesticides, Greenpeace, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/issues/gmos/ (last visited Sept. 19, 2021) [https://perma.cc/Y9K4-B3UD].
[vi] See The Editors, Labels for GMO Foods are a Bad Idea, Sci. Am. (Sept. 1, 2013) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/ [https://perma.cc/4XQ2-LY32].
[vii] See Daniel Ritchie, An Honest Discussion on the Labeling of GMOs, Sci. says (Feb. 26, 2018) https://davissciencesays.ucdavis.edu/blog/honest-discussion-labeling-gmos [https://perma.cc/N5PJ-JH7Z].
[viii] GMOs and Toxic Pesticides, Supra note v.
[ix] Id.
[x] Id.
[xi] Id.
[xii] The Editors, Supra note vi.
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Drew Kershen & Henry Miller, Viewpoint: USDA GMO Labeling Plan is Pointless, Expensive – and Probably Unconstitutional, Genetic Literacy Project (May 29, 2019) https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/05/29/viewpoint-usda-gmo-labeling-plan-is-pointless-expensive-and-probably-unconstitutional/ [https://perma.cc/48TZ-LSUD].
[xv] Id.
[xvi] The Editors, Supra note vi.
[xvii] See GMOs and Toxic Pesticides, Supra note v.
[xviii] James Wong, Gardens: Expose Yourself to Atomic Gardening, Guardian (Mar. 13, 2016) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/13/growing-atomically-energised-plants-james-wong [https://perma.cc/9HAG-8ZUF].
[xix] Id.
[xx] Miles McEvoy, Organic 101: What the USDA Organic Label Means, U.S. Dep’t Agric. (Mar. 13, 2019) https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means [https://perma.cc/HDZ9-6EFH].
[xxi] Daniel Engber, Why GMO Labels Should be Voluntary Like Kosher Labels, Genetic Literacy Project (Mar. 29, 2016) https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/03/29/gmo-labels-voluntary-like-kosher-labels/ [https://perma.cc/HE67-D8BG].
[xxii] Kershen and Miller, supra note xiv.
[xxiii] See The Editors, Supra note vi.