Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Pat ByrneDepartment of Soil & Crop SciencesColorado State University

Genetically engineered

Labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food may be an issue in Colorado in 2002.

• Sen. Ron Tupa (Boulder) may re-introduce a mandatory labeling bill in the Colorado legislature during the current session.

• A citizens initiative effort is planned for summer of 2002.

Cotton

Soybean

Corn

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

20

40

60

80

US adoption of transgenic crops:the big 3

Per

cen

t o

f ac

reag

e

2001

Other transgenic crops on the market

• Canola

• Papaya

• Summer squash

• Potato (but not for long)

• Tomato (1995-97, then withdrawn)

• Sweet corn (approved, but not grown)

X

Although the number of GE crops is small, the impact is huge: an estimated 60-70% of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE component (mostly corn or soy).

Impact at the supermarket

Pro-labeling argument

• Consumers have a right to know what's in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised.

Anti-labeling response

• Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected.

Anti-labeling response

• Most surveys have not included information on the cost of labeling. A recent Canadian study estimated a 9-10% increase in food prices.

Pro-labeling argument

• Surveys have indicated that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling.

Survey results from Colorado(Drs. Sue Hine and Maria Loureiro)

• 437 supermarket shoppers in four Front Range communities were surveyed in fall of 2000.

• 78% supported labeling of GE foods.

• However, consumers were not willing to pay a premium for labeling.

• Those most likely to favor mandatory labeling were female, older, and considered themselves less well informed about biotechnology.

Pro-labeling argument

• For religious or ethical reasons many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.

Anti-labeling response

• No plant products currently on the market include animal DNA.

• Those who wish to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which cannot include GE ingredients.

Pro-labeling response

• 22 countries have announced plans to institute some form of mandatory labeling. The U.S. could follow their lead in handling the logistics of product separation.

Anti-labeling argument

• The U.S. food system infrastructure (storage, transportation, and processing facilities) could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.

Pro-labeling response

• Sometimes issues need to be started at the state or local levels, before the federal government pays attention, e.g., standards for certification of organic foods.

Anti-labeling argument

• If labeling is done at all, it should be legislated at the federal level, given our national / international food supply.

• Mandatory or voluntary labeling?

Issues in labeling of GE food

Mandatory for both GE and non-GE foods

Voluntary for both GE and non-GE

Mandatory for GE, voluntary for non-GE

• What constitutes a GE food product?

Generally, limited to transgenic techniques, but some legislation might include breeding techniques in use for decades.

Which technologies included as GE?

All ingredients or just major ingredients?

Issues in labeling of GE food

Products of livestock fed transgenic feed?

No evidence of transgenic DNA or protein has been found in meat, milk, or eggs.

What threshold level -- 0% 1%? 5%?

Different countries have adopted different values.

Issues in labeling of GE food

• What language to use on a label?

Genetically modifiedGenetically engineeredBioengineeredProduct of biotechnologyProduct of modern biotechnology

May contain genetically engineered ingredients?

Information on why genetic engineering was done, e.g., for insect resistance?

Issues in labeling of GE food

Content-based verification: Test for physical presence of foreign DNA or protein.Analogy: vitamin content of foods.

Issues in labeling of GE food

• How to verify claims?

Process-based verification: Require detailed record-keeping of seed source, field location, harvest, transport, and storage. Analogy: shade-grown coffee.“Traceability”

• GE organism is one that has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means including but not limited to recombinant DNA techniques.

Labeling of Genetically Engineered FoodsColorado Citizens’ Initiative, 2000

• Livestock products if animal was fed GE material or treated with GE hormones or drugs.

• If any ingredient is > 0.1% GE material.

• If GE inputs were used in production.

• It has a significantly different nutritional property.

Current FDA policy requires that GE food be labeled if

• It contains an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present.

• It contains a toxicant at levels beyond acceptable limits.

For other cases, FDA proposes voluntary labeling

GMO free X “Free” implies zero,

which is difficult to verify.

X Virtually all

commercial foods have been genetically modified.

Not genetically modified

Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling

We do not use ingredients produced using biotechnology.

This product contains cornmeal that was produced using biotechnology.

Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling

This product contains high oleic acid soybean oil from soybeans developed using biotechnology to decrease the amount of saturated fat.

“High oleic acid soybean oil” is mandatory. The rest is voluntary, and considered acceptable by FDA.

Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling

This cantaloupe was not genetically engineered.

X May be

misleading

This cantaloupe, like all cantaloupes on the market, was not genetically engineered.

But,

For more information on GE crops:

www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/