USA: labeling of genetically engineered food

Proposed law would require labeling of genetically engineered food

Read the labels on the boxes and cans in the supermarket, and you can find out whether the food inside contains high-fructose corn syrup, trans fat, gluten, preservatives, artificial sweeteners or common allergens, such as nuts or dairy.

What you won’t be able to determine is whether the food was made with genetically engineered ingredients.

“Genetically engineered food must be labeled so everybody knows what they are buying and eating,” said Herman Brockman, a retired Illinois State University genetics professor, during a recent hearing on Illinois Senate Bill 1666, which would require food nutrition labels to list genetically engineered ingredients.

What are GE foods?

Genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM) is the laboratory process of artificially inserting genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. The result is called a GMO, or genetically modified organism. GMOs can be engineered with genes from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.

Why do it? Genetic alteration can enhance taste and quality, increase nutrients, improve resistance to pests and disease and allow crops to thrive with less water.

Although 64 countries – including Russia, China, Brazil, Spain, Greece, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Vietnam, Australia, Turkey and South Africa – mandate GE labeling, the U.S. is not among them.

There’s a grassroots drive to get a federal “right to know” law enacted; in addition, 26 states have introduced bills on the issue. SB 1666, sponsored by Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, would create the Illinois Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act. It would establish “a consistent and enforceable standard for labeling all foods produced using genetic engineering.”

His subcommittee on food labeling is holding three public hearings on the issue, featuring testimony by both proponents and opponents. A June 20 hearing was held in Normal. The other two are:

--Noon to 2 p.m .today, Student Center, Ballroom C, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale; and

--10 a.m. to noon, Sept. 17, Bilandic Building, Room 600, 160 N. LaSalle St., Chicago.

Are GE foods safe?

One point of controversy at the Normal hearing was whether adequate testing has been done on GE foods to determine whether they are safe to consume.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require or conduct safety studies on GE foods. Proponents say GE food developers voluntarily decide what kind of information they provide to the FDA, so consumers essentially have to take the biotech industry’s word that the food is safe. Whether or not there is a hazard, they say labeling would at least provide transparency, giving consumers information on which to make a choice.

Opponents of the legislation, on the other hand, say that hundreds of independent scientific studies have determined that GE foods are safe. Not only would labeling saddle business with mandated costs, they say, it would create an inference that GE foods are somehow inferior to their conventional counterparts.

“Farmers like me feel they have a moral obligation to provide food for our community, our state, our country and the world,” said Ron Moore of Roseville at the hearing. He farms 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans.

“Biotechnology helps to combat disease, increases annual yields, keeps food prices in check and improves freshness and taste . . . To me, GE labeling is unnecessary and sends a message that GE foods are unsafe, or unhealthy. This will only serve to increase the retail cost of food and discourage new advances in biotechnology that historically have been the hallmark of agricultural research in Illinois,” Moore testified.

Why isn’t this a federal issue?

Some question why states are tackling the labeling issue when it seems to be, more properly, a federal matter. Food products, after all, are often sold in states in addition to the one in which they are grown or processed.

“It’s an issue growing traction across the country, and no action has been taken at the federal level,” Koehler said. “You have to do what you have to do.”

Some at the hearing suggested that -- rather than label GE foods -- it would be simpler for manufacturers to label non-GE foods. Those manufacturers may be more willing to comply; the claim could provide a strong promotional message attractive to consumers. Koehler didn’t rule out changing the legislation to support that.

The wording of the bill is fluid, he said, and “there’s always the chance for amendment.” SJ-R