Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — The subject of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has sparked quite a debate. As observed in a recent ksl.com poll, more than 90 percent of respondents would like GMOs labeled. Similar polls conducted throughout the country indicate this same level of desire for labeling. So why aren’t food products containing GMOs being labeled as such?
The FDA has testified that it is actually limited, by law, in what labels it can require companies to have. In order for the FDA to require a company to label a new product as being different from other food products (such as in the case of GMOs), the genetic modification must significantly change the food and the label must not mislead consumers.
Two examples of such changes include introducing an allergen into the food that wasn’t originally there and changing the composition of the food so much that it would no longer belong to the type of food it started out as. The FDA uses a tomato as an example for requiring labeling regarding an allergen: “(I)f a tomato had a soybean gene introduced into it, labeling would be needed to alert consumers to the presence of the potential allergen, unless it could be demonstrated scientifically that the soybean allergen was not present.”
Related:
5 Ways to avoid GMOs
Whole Foods just announced they will label genetically modified organisms, but how can you be sure your food from the local supermarket doesn't contain them?The FDA uses a carrot as an example for requiring labeling in the change of composition: “(I)f a copy of a new gene introduced into a carrot produces a protein that significantly changes the composition of the vegetable, the name 'carrot' may no longer accurately describe the product and a new name would be required.”
According to these two limited cases, the current genetic modifying practices of biotechnology companies do not fall under the requirement of labeling. In fact, under these rules the labeling of GMOs would be seen to be in conflict with the law about not misleading consumers. FDA’s reasoning for this is that the genes being inserted into the foods produce proteins, carbohydrates or fats that are common food substances, are not known to be toxic, and are digestible to the normal person or animal. Thus by labeling foods containing GMOs, the consumer would be misled to think the food contained something uncommon, highly toxic, or undigestible.
"(I)f a copy of a new gene introduced into a carrot produces a protein that significantly changes the composition of the vegetable, the name 'carrot' may no longer accurately describe the product and a new name would be required."
In fact, there is an argument that GMOs are safer for human consumption than the average food since GMOs can be created with complete precision. Some GMOs have been designed to produce more in less space with less water than traditional varieties of plants and are thus considered more environmentally friendly. GMOs are generally created with the express intent to increase production, thus being better able to supply the needed item to more people.
Aside from the illegality of the FDA requiring labeling on GMOs, there are a number of problems that labeling could create. One such question is: what percentage of a food would need to be GMO-free in order to be declared "GMO-free"? As California resident and small-business owner Kjristi Burningham confided, “I actually voted against the labeling here in (California) because it seems like it needs to be something done on a national level. If just one state requires it, I could see it causing all kinds of headaches, particularly for small food companies that sell to a small market. … And details need to be well-thought out. For instance, will labeling be required at restaurants? What if one ingredient in a dish has been genetically modified, like a (teaspoon) of soy sauce, but the rest of the dish is not?”
Other concerns regard what foods would actually be labeled. In California’s Proposition 37, milk and meat from cows treated with a controversial genetically engineered rBGH hormone would have been labeled as "GMO-free" because the cows themselves are not genetically engineered. In cases similar to this, a "GMO-free" label could actually cause confusion instead of clarification.
While more than 90 percent of respondents want labeling, what is it that should actually be labeled? We’d love to hear your comments on it.
