Colorado State University Extension
SafeFood Rapid Response Network


SAFEFOOD NEWS - Fall 2001 - Vol 6, no. 1

Go to Table of Contents for this issue

Labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods

Whether or not to require labeling of GE foods is likely to be the hot topic in food biotechnology over the next year. The issue has already surfaced several times in Colorado. A bill requiring mandatory labeling was introduced in the Colorado legislature in 2001, but died in committee. There have also been unsuccessful attempts to place citizen initiatives on the ballot, both statewide and in the city of Denver. Similar efforts are expected in 2002.

Current policy

The Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GE foods only if the food has a significantly different nutritional property, or if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present. Early in 2001, the FDA proposed voluntary guidelines for labeling food that does or does not contain GE ingredients (see Table 1). FDA is still accepting public comment on these guidelines (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html)

Issues in mandatory labeling

Although mandatory labeling of GE ingredients may appear to be a straightforward measure, there are several complex issues that would have to be resolved prior to implementation.

What specific technologies for crop variety development would require a label? The target of most labeling efforts is food products that have been genetically engineered, that is, they contain genes artificially inserted from another organism. However, some legislative efforts have defined the term "genetically modified" more broadly to include an array of techniques that were in use by plant breeders well before the GE era.

Table 1. Examples of Voluntary Labeling Under the Proposed FDA Guidelines.

What percentage of a GE ingredient must be present in a food before a label is required? One percent is a figure that is commonly proposed, but figures ranging from 0.1 to 5% have also been suggested.

Would meat and dairy products derived from livestock fed transgenic crops require a label? Some labeling proposals include these products among those that would require labels, yet the biological rationale for doing so has not been demonstrated, that is, DNA or protein from inserted genes have not been found in livestock products.

What is the economic impact of labeling? The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the label. Accurate labeling would require an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer . Testing would have to be done at various steps along the food supply chain (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000). A recent study commissioned by the Canadian government estimated mandatory labeling would require a 10% increase in food prices. This would mean, for example, that a package of tortillas costing $1.50 would increase to $1.65.

Pro-labeling arguments

• Consumers have a right to know what's in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised.
   
• Surveys have indicated that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling (although the surveys generally do not specify the effect on food prices).
   
• Other countries (22 to date) have announced plans to institute some form of mandatory labeling (Phillips and McNeill, 2000), and the U.S. could follow their lead in handling the logistics of product separation.
   
• For religious or ethical reasons many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.

Anti-labeling arguments

• Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
   
• Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Persons at lower income levels would be the most affected.
   
• Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot include GE ingredients above defined threshold levels.
   
• The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
   
• Consumers wanting to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes.

Additional Information Resources

Food and Drug Administration. Report on consumer focus groups on biotechnology. www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html.

AgBio Forum, http://www.agbioforum.org/, Vol. 3, No. 4 is devoted to labeling of food produced through biotechnology.

The Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/VoluntaryLabelingMemo.html, argues against voluntary labeling.

Maltsbarger, R., and N. Kalaitzandonakes. 2000. Direct and hidden costs in identity preserved supply chains. AgBio Forum, www.agbioforum.org/. Vol. 3, no. 4.

Phillips, W.B., and H. McNeill. 2000. A survey of national labeling policies for GM foods. AgBio Forum, www.agbioforum.org/. Vol. 3, no. 4.

Updated Monday, August 29, 2011