OPINION: LET THE CONSUMER MARKET DECIDE ON GMO LABELING

OPINION

Let the Consumer Market Decide on GMO Labeling

By Loren Israelsen

It’s the most contentious issue for industry since the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 or the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). More than USD $50 million has already been spent defending it and decrying it—with much more to come.

Yet, most consumers don’t even know what it is. The fight over the mandatory labeling of foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will only escalate leading up to November, when voters in the state of Washington will determine the fate of a closely watched GMO-labeling bill, known as Initiative 522. This follows the narrow defeat of a similar bill in California last year. Agriculture is Washington state’s largest employer, and wheat, itself a GMO candidate, is the state’s number two export crop, ahead of the goods and services provided by Microsoft, which ranks third.

At issue isn’t so much whether GMO ingredients are or are not in food and supplement products, but whether consumers should have the right to know of their existence on labels. Supporters of labeling in the Washington initiative noted foods identified as produced without genetic engineering, including conventional foods, are the fastest growing label claim.

According to new research from the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI), consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the term "GMO," but still have little knowledge about GMOs, with only 6 percent reporting that they are “most knowledgeable." Currently, only 15 percent of shoppers look for GMO-content information on labels.

GMOs were in more than 88 percent of conventionally grown corn and close to 94 percent of commercially grown soy, based on 2011 data, in addition to its presence in other crops, such as canola, sugar beet and cotton. While GMO ingredients are prohibited in organic foods, no such regulations exist covering ingredients used in dietary supplements—unless they are certified organic or certified GMO-free.

At press time, an additional 25 states are considering labeling laws. in April, a national labeling bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate; earlier in July, a California judge created a six-month stay of action in the Elizabeth Cox vs. Gruma Corp. class action lawsuit over “natural" claims in Mission-brand snack chips containing GMO corn. The judge said, “deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority is the appropriate course." Observers said this isn’t likely at any time in the near future because the agency doesn’t consider GMO-based food to be different from non-GMO food, nor does the agency recognize any health or safety issues.

The United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) and its membership are supportive of the labeling for foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing GMO ingredients and of the retailer-initiated Non-GMO Project. A UNPA symposium held in May in Salt Lake City created a forum for company executives and representatives from both sides to discuss the labeling issue and, more importantly, the sourcing of non-GMO ingredients in a post-label world—especially for dietary supplements.NP