Labeling of GMO-Derived Food Ingredients: A Recipe for Misinformation
May 03, 1999
Remarks of John S. Eldred, partner, presented to the27th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, Ottawa, Canada, April 27-30, 1999. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of his firm or its clients. For further information, please contact John S. Eldred at 202-434-4176 or eldred@khlaw.com.
The consumer’s need for accurate information is of paramount importance: no one here disputes this fact. What we all should remember, however, is that this need is not a mandate for selective inclusion of label information by individuals or groups that may support or oppose a given technology or ingredient. There is, rather, an ethical and moral imperative to provide full, accurate and non-misleading information that is of real value to consumers. The consumer has no right to misleading information and does not wish to be misled. A simple statement regarding the presence of genetically modified components, delivered out of context and without appropriate elaboration, fails this test entirely. Inaccurate and misleading information is worse than no information at all. For this reasonthis Committee should, indeed must, oppose any further efforts to mandate, endorse or agree to uninformative, inaccurate and incomplete labeling cloaked in the guise of full disclosure, until such time as it can establish meaningful criteria to ensure that consumers receive the whole story, and not just what one or another interested party would like them to know.
Without innovation, there would be no polio vaccine, no revolution in electronicinformation available over the internet, and, yes, no disease-resistant, higher-yielding crops to feed the world’s hungry through genetic modification achieved by such traditional means as hybridization. Today, critical advances in biotechnology hold the promise of alleviating hunger and malnutrition, so there can be no compromise when some oppose innovation simply because it is new. In such a case there are only two outcomes, reflecting competing philosophies: Either a new product, process, or substance is permitted, under the law, after strict scrutiny to ensure it is safe and will not adversely affect our environment, or it is not permitted, because, despite proof of safety and lack of environmental harm, according to current scientific standards, there is—as there always is when something new is created—some slight possibility of unforeseen harm, however remote that possibility may be. If this latter philosophy ultimately prevails, then we have entered the 14th century, when the prevailing view was that all knowledge had then been obtained, rather than the 21st.
Fortunately, the anti-innovationist view is not now dominant. Those who oppose the development of GMO’s—instinctively rather than on scientific grounds—havenot succeeded in shutting the gates on new products. High-level scientific and regulatory bodies in the United States, Japan and Europe, including the EU Scientific Committees for Food and Animal Nutrition, have thoroughly reviewed, for example, GM soya and corn, and have concluded that they are indeed safe for human consumption.**
Having failed before these bodies, those who oppose the use of GMOs have now turned to this Committee to attempt to gain indirectly what they could not accomplish directly. They do this by proposing that this prestigious body recommend mandatory labeling that a food contains an ingredient derived from a genetically modified plant. They want such a label even though the food product is equivalent or even improved in safety, nutrition, function, and quality to "traditional" versions of the food. Why is this proposed? Because the proponents wish to stigmatize those products with a label notice that has the effect of a warning. And stigmatize, such a label will. To cite one example: In the United Kingdom, the popular press has, through a campaign of misinformation, created near-hysteria by slanderously referring to food products containing GMO derivatives as "Frankenstein Foods." Polling data cited from these same news organizations reveal 67% of consumers would not buy a food product so labeled, and fully one-half believe that such a food poses a danger to health.
Under those circumstances, mandatory GMO labeling will set off a mad scramble among food processors to source ingredients that will allow the label requirement to be avoided. Aside from the inefficiencies and expense this will entail, it will have an unknown but potentially serious adverse effect on current agricultural practices, and may well stop in its tracks development of promising new crop strains that can potentially benefit farmers and consumers as well.
But apart from this, this Committee should reject mandatory GMO labeling because it is inconsistent with the Committee’s—and the world’s—establishedprinciples of appropriate food labeling. A mandate to disclose the GMO-derived nature of processed foods is a mandate to require misleading labeling. Such a label statement, particularly in the current climate, falsely implies the food is less safe than "conventional" foods. Conversely, a label claim of "GMO-free" falselyimplies such a food is safer and better than GMO-containing foods.
This Committee has always placed paramount importance on truth in labeling. Its general labeling standard prohibits the use of labeling which is "false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect." (Codex General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods, § 3.1.) A mandate to disclose GMO-derived ingredients promotes labeling that serves to mislead, rather than inform. Let there be no mistake. This debate is not one of ethics, "consumer right to know," or other high-sounding principles. It is about getting GMO foods off the grocer’s shelves. Supported by a suspicious and misinformed public, urged on by sensationalist media, many proponents of such labeling wish to achieve a ban by using this Committee’s labeling recommendations to effectively enact it.
A decision not to impose mandatory GMO labeling on prepackaged foods will not deprive consumers of the ability to learn about the use of GMO-derived ingredients. Responsible manufacturers have and always will address their customers’ inquiries. Responses to telephone, letter, or internet inquiries will allow manufacturers to provide truthful information in a non-misleading context. Where applicable, they can explain how and why their products contain GMO derivatives and why they are safe.
The food processing and agricultural industries’ mandate is clear: when improvedcrops are developed from the use of recombinant DNA techniques, industry must fully and thoroughly assess the safety, quality and nutritional profile of the resulting food articles, and prove the equivalence of these articles, to those governments requiring official review and clearance before marketing and use. Those individuals and organizations that oppose such clearance should be given an opportunity to participate fully in the process, and to file comments, arguments and data to the authorities in support of their views.
It is the regulatory and food safety authorities, both nationally and internationally, that provide a forum for both the opponents and proponents of the use of GMO food ingredients, and who will decide whether they will be allowed. And this is properly so. The decisions should be made by experts with first-hand knowledge of the relevant scientific data, not by supermarket chains’ purchasing agents overreacting to hysteria. With all due respect, these decisions should likewise not be made by this Committee, which has neither the knowledge nor the expertise, nor the jurisdiction, to make them. This Committee should not unwittingly hand the anti-innovationists the victory that has so far eluded them when GMO products have received appropriate government clearance. Let this Committee not now depart from its core principle of truthful and non-misleading labels on food products. Let it maintain this principle by rejecting proposals to require mandatory GMO labeling.
*Copyright © 1999 by John S. Eldred, Esq. All rights reserved.
** The European Scientific Committee for Food reached just such aconclusion relative to GMO soya and maize products in Opinions dated 13 December 1996 and 21 March 1997.