New GMO Law! Is Everybody Happy? Of Course Not!

A new GMO labeling law--which activists have been clamoring for--has finally been passed by both Houses of Congress and been signed by the President. In general, it will require the food industry to let consumers know which foods contain GMOs and which do not.  This act has been referred to as a compromise. Compromises do not make everyone happy, and sometimes make no one happy. Therefore, we probably haven't heard the end of the GMO debates. 

The most significant compromise, in this case, is that, while the law requires that consumers be given GMO information, the letters "GMO" don't need to be stated on the packaging.  A text label, symbol, or electronic code would suffice. Alternatively, the information can be, for example, on an app or a website. Those who want GMO information to be as easy as possible want it right on the food label, accessible to even the technologically unsophisticated.   But the food industry has resisted because of the expense. and, in the industry's opinion, lack of necessity for GMO labeling considering the fact that about 75% of our food contains some GMO material (mostly in corn- or soy-based products)., and no safety concerns have been demonstrated.  Hence, a compromise. 

Just in case you don't know (which is unlikely), GMO stands for "genetically modified organism." Fox News explains the process this way: GMO foods "are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA."  I hope that's perfectly clear even though it may sound impossible to non-scientists.

The GMO bill passed the Senate on July 7, 2016 and the House on July 14, 2016. President Obama signed it into law on July 16. Shelf Life Advice asked the scientists who serve on its Advisory Board to explain some specifics of the new GMO law and comment upon the law and GMOs in general. Let's begin with a summary of the legislation. 

KEY POINTS OF THE GMO BILL

 Compiled by food scientist Dr. Karin Allen:

1. The USDA will develop the GMO labeling regulations by 7/29/18. There are specific requirements mandated by the bill, but the USDA will decide how/when the rules apply and when they will go into effect.  Other matters left up to the USDA include the following:

a) What level of GMO content will require labeling;

b) What wording must be used on labels, websites, etc., and what types of electronic codes/links can be used in place of text on actual labels.

2. The GMO label statement can be in the form of specific text or symbol(s) on the packaging, or it can be provided through an electronic link. (USDA must provide options for all 3 in the final rule.)

3. Products made from livestock fed with GMO feed do not need to carry a GMO label.

4. Products meeting the requirements for organic labeling (also under USDA jurisdiction) are exempt from GMO labeling requirements because organic regulations prohibit GMO foods (or foods made using GMO ingredients) from making organic claims.

5. The regulations apply to all foods under FDA jurisdiction, but only some foods under USDA jurisdiction.  This means meats (e.g. beef, pork and lamb), poultry, and eggs will not carry GMO labeling.  Products containing these ingredients are required to carry GMO labeling only under these conditions:

 a) If the main ingredient (listed first in the ingredient statement) falls under FDA jurisdiction, or

 b)  If, in the case of foods such as soup (in which the first ingredient is water, broth, stock, or something similar), the second ingredient falls under FDA jurisdiction.  

Examples: A sausage that has beef as the first ingredient does not need to include a GMO label statement even though it contains corn syrup (which is almost certain to be made from GMO corn). Based on the ingredient statements currently on their labels, Campbell’s Chunky Sirloin soup may have to carry GMO labeling, while Dinty Moore Beef Stew would not because beef and water are the first two ingredients. 

OUR ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS' RESPONSES TO THE NEW LAW

Dr. Karin Allen: 

"My take on all of this is that it will cause a lot of unnecessary worry for consumers. Especially considering #5 above, I think it’s going to create even more confusion.  The average consumer isn’t going to be familiar enough with how the labeling regulations apply (USDA versus FDA product jurisdiction) to understand why one canned beef soup is labeled but another isn’t.  The automatic assumption will be that one is “better” because it doesn’t carry a GMO symbol.  

"While I support the goal of educating consumers, I don’t think this bill achieves that. That being said, we will not know how this will impact the food labels until we read the USDA's final rule. I don’t expect to see it issued until closer to the deadline in 2018.  As the USDA begins developing draft rules, the agency will be open for comment from industry, consumers, academia, and other regulatory agencies.  Consumers who are interested in the process or wish to comment on the proposed rules can receive alerts by signing up for USDA mailing lists."

Under the new law, the FDA will continue to evaluate and regulate all GMO ingredients for safety, as it has done for many years.

Food process engineer Dr. Timothy Bowser:

"GMO labeling could be expensive, and, depending on how it is implemented, it may not have a significant impact."

Food scientist Dr. Catherine Cutter:

[Editor's note: Dr. Cutter makes a point in favor of GMO labeling and a justification for having GMOs in our food and perhaps even expanding our use of GMOs.]  "Consumers want information to enable them to make educated choices....

"We won't be able to feed our growing world-wide population with the food supply we have now.  We need to do it more efficiently. GMOs may be the way to do so."

To explain why GMOs can make important improvements in the world's food supply, Dr. Cutter quoted an article entitled "The ABCs of GMOs," which is posted on the University of Illinois Extension website: "Research has shown that biotechnology can enhance a food's nutritional profile, taste and quality. This process can lead to better food products, higher crop yields, and even improved food security for growing populations worldwide."

I asked Dr. Cutter, "Are you saying that the earth's population should/will be consuming more foods with GMO ingredients in the future?"

She replied, "Yes, that is my prediction."

Food scientist Dr. Clair Hicks:

"GMO labeling is a tricky matter. It's good that the federal government has now passed a law that will make all 50 states uniform in this regard.   I also think it's good to give consumers full information, but I think there will be some fallout from doing so.  Consumers will be surprised by the number of products that contain GMOs. Also, Congress will need to define what a GMO is because some definitions allow for foods that are quasi-GMOs to be in the market without a label.  Certainly, industry will use the most gene-manipulative techniques to achieve results without having to label them. 

"The anti-GMO people and organizations love the fact that they will be getting a label because that puts more money into their coffers to support their lobbying to remove GMO products from the market place. 

"In the long run, I think labeling will hurt good technology.  One of the documented stories is that of Yellow Rice, a GMO which can be used to add vitamin A to rice.  This GMO would save millions of children across Asia from going blind in childhood. However, so much resistance has come from the anti-GMO camps that no country has really endorsed this technology."

Food scientist Dr. Joe Regenstein: 

 A defender of GMOs, Dr. Regenstein, begins his  PowerPoint presentation--"Industrial Farming and GMOs"--this way: "I would like to share with you the perspective of a food scientist who is concerned with the challenges of feeding 9.5 to 10 billion people within this century and therefore believes that we will need to use technology, including modern genetics, to provide food, clothing and shelter for all of the people around the world." 

The Power-Point presentation notes that the following organizations have publicly supported GMOs: The FDA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the European Food Safety Authority. 

It also discusses the many advantages of GMO crops for the farmer, the consumer, and the planet. The farmer benefits by an increase in yield and fewer pests attacking his crops. The consumer gains because some foods with GMO ingredients contain more vitamins and minerals than their conventional counterparts. The entire planet benefits because GMOs can be drought, salt, and heat tolerant. They may also reduce the need for farmers to use harmful pesticides on their crops.

COMMENTS FROM ONLINE ARTICLES

Fox News: "While the food industry ended up supporting the final bill, many of the advocates did not, arguing that many consumers won't be able to read electronic labels and that there aren't enough penalties for companies that don't comply."

Fortune.com: [Editor's note.: Arguing that this law hasn't won over all those in favor of food labeling] "One criticism is that the bill allowed companies to use QR [quick response] codes  or  1-800 numbers as a form of GMO labeling, forcing consumers to scan the code or make a call to get more information.  That's why some opponents are calling the bill the DARK Act, short for "Denying Americans the Right to Know."  [The Fortune article also mentioned opposition related to the fact that this federal law probably [Editor's note: since confirmed] nullifies the Vermont legislation on GMOs, and the Vermont law was more stringent. [Note: "A QR code is a machine-readable code consisting of an array of black and white squares, typically used for storing URLs or other information for reading, using the camera on a smartphone." Thank you, Google, for the definition.]

GMOs AROUND THE WORLD: NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

Dr. Hicks: "My recent contact with the British has led me to believe that they will never knowingly accept GMOs.  While they use insulin from a GMO organism (for diabetics), they don't realize that they're using GMOs. If they knew about it, I am sure some would stop using it, and the number of deaths would go up rapidly.  Fortunately, Americans don't seem to be as opposed to GMOs as the Europeans.  South Americans have accepted GMOs to a larger extent than North Americans.  All of the soybeans in South America are GMO as is much of the corn.  This will give South America a real world market advantage in the future. 

Brazil and Argentina will continue to gain worldwide market shares of grains and soybeans because they can produce GMO products more cheaply than countries growing non-GMO equivalents.  As the world's population continues to grow, yields and the cost of production will force countries to overwhelmingly purchase GMO products.  So I think the future for GMO product is quite bright, but it's going to be a hard fight in some of the developed countries, harder in those countries with emerging economies.

EVIDENCE ABOUT SAFETY

Advocacy groups have fought for GMO labeling because they believe that consumers have the right to know what ingredients are in the food they're eating.  Why do they care if the food contains a speck or two of a GMO product?  Probably because they believe that GMOs are harmful to their health or, at least, that there is a risk of danger.  Now, new evidence strongly suggests that there's no reason to fear GMOs. 

The Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter (September 2016) summarizes a "sweeping new scientific report [that] concludes that genetically engineered crops are as safe as conventionally grown foods." 

Timothy Griffin, PhD, an associate professor at Tufts' Friedman School and director of the Agriculture, Food and Environment program, was among 20 scientists who spent 2 years reviewing 900 research publications for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.   They found no evidence of a negative impact from GMOs.  However, Griffin, pointed out, "That doesn't say there never will be a risk.  Policy and regulatory functions need to continue to look at these issues."

In addition to reviewing published studies, the committee compared the incidence of a number of serious illnesses and conditions (such as cancers, diabetes, kidney disease, and autism) in North America (where GMOs have been part of the diet since 1996) and Europe (which restricts the  use of  GMOs). The researchers  found no differences between the two sides of the pond.  The committee also pointed out that the line between GMO breeding and conventional breeding of crops is blurring.  The report says, "It is the product, not the process, that should be regulated."

Dr. Regenstein's PowerPoint presentation on GMOs reaches  this thought-provoking conclusion: "One of the ideas that seems to be out there is that somehow eating modern genetic modifications of DNA is somehow different from eating all the rest of the DNA from all the rest of the organisms/biological materials we eat.  There is not scientific basis for this." Nor is there common sense evidence.  I eat chicken almost every day but I've yet to grow feathers--and neither have my children or grandchildren. 

[Editor's note: To reach links to other GMO articles on Shelf Life Advice, just type GMO into the search box on the site's home page.]

Source(s):

Shelf Life Advice Advisory Board members who contributed to this article:

Karin E. Allen, Ph.D., Utah State University, Dept. of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences

Timothy J. Bowser, Ph.D. , Oklahoma State University, Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Catherine Nettles Cutter, Ph.D. , Pennsylvania State University, Department of Food Science

Clair L. Hicks, Ph.D., University of Kentucky, Dept. of Animal and Food Sciences

Joe Regenstein, Ph.D., Cornell University, Dept. of Food Science

Fortune.com "President Obama Signed This GMO Labeling Bill"

http://fortune.com/2016/07/31/gmo-labeling-bill/ 

FoodSafetyNews.com "Compromise bill on GMO labeling lands on president's desk"

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/07/compromise-bill-on-gmo-labeling-lands-on-presidents-desk/ - .V8xAUzuyRps

foxnews.com "Obama signs federal bill requiring labeling of GMO foods"

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/08/01/obama-signs-federal-bill-requiring-labeling-gmo-foods/

modernfarmer.com "What You Need To Know About the New GMO Labeling Law"

http://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/gmo-labeling-law/

Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter, "Report: GMO Foods as Safe as Conventional Choices," September, 2016. 

extension.illinois.edu "The ABCs of GMOs" by Leia Kedem

http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cfiv/weekly/120821.html