SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North AmericaEU edition | Asian edition

News > Regulation

Former FDA official on GMO labeling: ‘Science doesn’t always win’

22 commentsBy Elaine WATSON , 17-May-2013
Last updated on 17-May-2013 at 17:41 GMT

Former FDA official on GMO labeling: ‘Science doesn’t always win’

Whether the food industry likes it or not, when it comes to GMO labeling, the “train appears to have left the station”, according to former FDA associate commissioner of foods Dr David Acheson.

Dr Acheson, who now heads up the food and import safety division at consultancy Leavitt Partners, was speaking to FoodNavigator-USA as a GMO labeling bill passed its first regulatory hurdle in Vermont (click here ) and members of Congress examine a federal GMO labeling bill proposed by Sen Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

The last thing the food industry wants is 50 different laws in 50 states

He added: “I think it’s only a matter of time before one state [GMO labeling proposal] is successful and the last thing the food industry wants is 50 different laws in 50 states, so the thinking is that if it’s going to happen, it would be better to have one standard that’s national.

“They also can’t afford to oppose it in 50 states. I think there may be an attitude of let’s just do it now [work with the FDA to create a national labeling law] and get it over with because ultimately, we will lose [the argument against GMO labeling].

Meanwhile, global food companies are already having to navigate GMO labeling laws in other markets, he added.

“I think many food companies were hoping that after [Californian GMO labeling initiative] Prop 37 was defeated, this issue would go away, but it hasn’t.

“I don’t know if the average consumer cares about this but there is a very vocal minority that’s driving change - it’s analogous to the pink slime issue."

What is the purpose of food labeling?

But while the outcome of this debate might “appear inevitable”, he said, “let’s not confuse consumers’ appropriate desire to know what they are eating with risk-based labeling for the purposes of public health.”

The issue for legislators is complex, however. Does there have to be a food safety risk or nutritional issue for labeling to be warranted? Or do consumers have a ‘right to know’ regardless? What is the purpose of labeling?

This issue was a constant subject of debate when he was at the FDA, said Dr Acheson, not least because there is only a limited amount of space on food labels, meaning that anything that has to be there by law should be there for a good reason.

What precedent might it set if legislation is passed to label foods made using certain technologies?

Dr David Acheson: 'Let’s not confuse consumers’ appropriate desire to know what they are eating with risk-based labeling for the purposes of public health'

Meanwhile, what precedent might it set if legislation is passed to label foods made using certain technologies, even if the end product does not differ from other foods in any meaningful or material way or present any different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding methods?

“My philosophy was that labels are there to inform about public health issues that are important for consumers’ wellbeing”, said Dr Acheson.

”But it’s difficult. For example at one time [2004/5] we were debating whether there ought to be labels about mercury levels in canned seafood and whether a majority of consumers would benefit from this.”

The dilemma was whether blanket warning labels - which would likely dent sales of a low-fat healthy product high in protein and other nutrients - in order to address the concerns of a small subset of the population, were justified, he said.  

However, you could argue that country-of-origin labeling is hard to justify on public health or nutrition grounds, “so in a sense, a precedent has already been set” for labeling foods on ‘right to know’ grounds, he said.

“I don’t disagree with the view that consumers have a right to know what they are eating, although I’ve not seen any science that convinces me that GMOs represent any kind of threat to the public. I also think that not all GMOs are created equal and everything must be assessed [on its own merits].

“But if we are to have labeling, the question is how will this information be presented such that it is ‘FYI’, not a health warning.”

Will the major players ‘just label it’ and be done with it?

So how does he anticipate things playing out?  Will the major players ‘just label it’ and be done with it, or will a federal GMO labeling law encourage a wholesale shift away from agricultural biotechnology in the US as major firms seek to source non-GMO ingredients? 

No one really knows, although it will not be practically possible to go non-GMO overnight, he said.

“I suspect if we do label GMOs, there will be a section of the public that will change their behavior, while other people will be happy to buy GM foods, and others will not notice and we’ll get over it and move on. But if consumers start to shift, businesses will have to respond.

“But as a planet I don’t know how we are going to feed everyone without higher yielding and drought resistant crops. What’s the alternative?”

The momentum building behind GMO labeling just shows what a “small, highly vocal, well organized group of people can accomplish irrespective of the science”, said Dr Acheson.

“Science doesn’t always win.”

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter

Get FREE access to authoritative breaking news, videos, podcasts, webinars and white papers. SUBSCRIBE

22 comments (Comments are now closed)

Take a chill pill on GM labeling

There seems to be a lot of fear mongering when the issue of GM labeling is brought up. On the one side, the anti-GM lobby worry that GM food will kill them while the pro-GM lobby (mostly Biotech companies) worry that GM labeling will kill profits because it makes GM food seem bad. Forget the hype – there are other reasons to consider in terms of GM labeling.

Currently, mandatory GM labeling is applied in 11 of the top 28 major GM producing countries in the world – not because of safety concerns – GM labeling is not a safety issue – it‘s about the consumers right to information. Countries that apply mandatory GM labeling and that are in the top 28 for GM production include Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India, Romania, South Africa, Slovakia, Portugal and Spain - noticeably quite a few developing countries - and they get it right – but not the USA!!!

There is no single report to show that mandatory GM labeling has resulted in any noticeable food price increase or make consumers negative toward GM foods.

In 64 countries, GM ingredients in foods are labeled in the same way that additives are labeled. There is no fuss, no fear just free democratic access to information.

Report abuse

Posted by Chris
18 July 2013 | 14h35

Consumer Label Desires

I get tired of continuously hearing about this study that says that 90% of consumers want GMO labeling. I wonder how this survey was conducted, the questions asked, and the locale.

I recently read an article that indicated that a survey conducted on what people want on thier label indicated 3% mentioned GMO. This survey used unaided questions.

Any survey can get you the results you want if you ask the questions in a certain way. I would bet that if I conducted a survey that asked: 'Would you be interested in getting a new car if it was available at no cost?' that I could get a 90% approval rate as well.

What is my point? Be careful of all the statistics that are tossed around.

Will there be GMO labeling? More than likely. Barry C. previously makes a very good point. Simply label the products that do not contain GMO. Why is that not an option in the Just Label It group?

Report abuse

Posted by Mike
07 June 2013 | 20h06

High yield argument is a crock

Thanks to Terra for her post on why the higher yeid argument is a crock of s***. Starvation comes from political and economic decisions, not from the size of the yeild. Maybe this: When pollution finally renders the first world sterile, the third world will have a chance to feed itself off whatever land is left unpolluted.

Report abuse

Posted by Lydia Freund
01 June 2013 | 01h46

Read all comments (22)

Related products