It is safe to say that most Americans want to believe that what they are consuming is truly what they are consuming. To that end, the concerns and necessity surrounding food labeling began in 1977 when products containing the artificial sweetener, saccharin, were required to have a label informing the consumer of the potential adverse health effects of saccharin consumption (USFDA, 2009, a.). This legislation did not restrict the use of saccharin, but it did alert the consumer to the “potential” for deleterious health effects, not unlike alcohol and cigarette packages of today.
In 1990 the USFDA enacted the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act further requiring all packaged foods to follow standardized terms for content and health claims. Additionally, supplementary changes to labeling and standardization of terminology have been added to products with known or suspect allergenic reactions such as, latex, certain plastics, peanuts, shellfish, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) (USFDA, 2011). Tweaks to the labeling system are current and ongoing in an attempt to best inform Americans about the products that they consume.
Therefore, given America’s legislative tradition of full disclosure regarding product content, it is not unreasonable to expect that a product or commodity containing genetically engineered (GE) material would be labeled as such. This allows the consumer to consume or not consume based on personal choice. Like alcohol or cigarette packages, this does not impose a governmental opinion, but serves only to provide a “heads-up”. This “heads-up” approach has the bio-tech industry screaming foul and the truth in advertising population screaming fair. Not surprisingly, money is at the root of this controversy.
Bio-tech advocates rely on support from “substantial equivalence” (USFDA, 1992), essentially that GE food and feed products are almost exactly the same as naturally occurring products (USFDA, 2009, b.). Further, citing an unnecessary—but unsupported—claim that the resulting substantial increases in product costs will impact not only non–consumers of GE products, but all consumers (Byrne, 2010). In a research study at Colorado State University’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, a series of surveys specifically targeted at potatoes were undertaken to understand Colorado-consumer attitudes toward GE foods. The survey of 437 supermarket shoppers in four Front Range communities in the Fall of 2000 found that 78 percent supported mandatory labeling of GE foods (Byrne, 2010). Further surveys, studies, analyses, and prognostications all dependent on the tenuous hold of substantial equivalency lead us to believe that consumers are not willing to pay for labeling (Byrne, 2010), but more than a decade after CSU’s potato survey, informed consumers worldwide are still fighting for GE labeling (FSANZ, 2011).
Clearly, after more than ten years of embittered battling between industry and consumers, Americans join the ranks of citizens worldwide that want to know a product contains, or is, GE and are willing to pay to fight for that right.
References
Byrne, P. (9/2010). Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. Colorado State University; Extension. No. 9.371. Retrieved 27 February 2011 from
FSANZ. (2011). Genetically Modified Foods (GM). Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from
USFDA. (2011). Labeling & Nutrition.
USFDA. (2009, a.). Milestones in Food and Drug Law.
USFDA. (2009, b.). Plant Biotechnology for Food and Feed
USFDA. (1992). Statement of Policy – Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties
No comments:
Post a Comment