Back in the 90’s, when the first transgenic tomato concentrate hit the shelves of British supermarkets, there was nothing suspicious about it. The can was larger than its conventional counterpart and had a bright yellow label “MADE WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED TOMATOES”. And customers bought it. Only when some global food producers started putting the GM information in fine-print on the back of the package, NGOs found a reason to campaign against GMO.
Millions and millions of European taxpayers’ Euros were spent on research of the safety of GMO. And to date, more than 20 years later, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that demonstrates the approved GMOs are unsafe.
And then, there is the consumer’s right to know. I certainly agree that the consumer – and I am one of them – has the right to know about the products he/she purchases. So, a new labeling rule was introduced to indicate if a product contains a GMO ingredient. Europe introduced regulatory requirements to label products that contain equal or more than 0.9% GMO per ingredient. Is there a scientific reasoning behind the 0.9%? Again, I have not heard a conclusive argument why it had to be 0.9% instead of 1% or, why it could not be 5%, in line with the permitted seed impurity threshold. What we are certain about is that it did bring a lot of business to certification companies and analytical laboratories. Has a food producer ever been taken to court because a laboratory detected 1% of GMO that was not labeled? Not to my knowledge since the measurement uncertainty too high to be able to differentiate between 0.9% and 1%.
So now, 15 years after Europe introduced its labeling requirement for GMOs (EC 1829/2003), the USDA has proposed labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients. In the US Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 87 of Friday, May 4, 2018, you will find the proposal on page 19860. To me, the proposed icons resemble the stamps for organic produce and convey a positive impression. In addition, they do not use the wording GMO or GE (genetically engineered). Instead, the term ‘bioengineered’ and ‘BE’ are used. It is not clear how well this terminology would be understood by the consumers unless it is accompanied by an awareness campaign.
USDA Icon Prototypes for foods containing bioengineered (GMO) ingredients.
How about labeling threshold? As mentioned previously, Europe requires labeling of GM materials at 0.9% and higher. USDA proposes three different threshold levels for consideration: 0.9%, 5% and 10%. The level chosen will have a direct impact on cost. If the level chosen is below permitted seed impurity, it will add significantly to the cost of production.
And another question to ask: how many products would consumers see labeled? According to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), in the US, adoption rates of major staple crops are 90% and higher (canola: 90%, corn 92%, cotton 93%, soybean 94% and sugar beet 100%). As the vast majority of products on the supermarket shelves contain one or several of these crops, it is likely that the BE label would be almost omnipresent in supermarkets.
Looking back at two decades in which most staple crops in the USA is produced from genetically engineered varieties, the question to be asked: what difference will such label make to the consumer and what will the additional cost be?
From consumer surveys performed in the 90’s in Europe we have learned to differentiate the response of a consumer to the question “would you like to see genetically engineered products labeled” and the actual behavior when shopping in a supermarket.
Maybe it is time the US regulators take a look at the 15 years of GM labeling experience in Europe and the impact on cost and consumer behavior.
