Are GE products safe? What is happening on biotechnology issues in Washington, DC? Stay informed on the latest current issues in biotechnology by reading Biotech Director Greg Jaffe’s blog.
This past weekend while grocery shopping at my neighborhood Giant
supermarket, I noticed a surprising number of products claiming to be
“non-GMO.” For many consumers, those claims probably raise several
questions. Are foods that contain ingredients from GMOs (genetically
modified organisms) safe?
[i]
Is the “non-GMO” label claim accurate? Are those label claims just a
marketing ploy to get consumers to purchase the product at a higher
price?
Personally, I don’t go out of my way to purchase products with a
non-GMO label because there is an international scientific consensus
that ingredients from existing genetically engineered (GE) crops are
safe to eat and nutritionally identical to their conventional
counterparts. A recent
National Academy of Sciences report
thoroughly reviewed all available evidence on GMO crop safety and
concluded that “no differences have been found that implicate a higher
risk to human health and safety from these GE foods than from their
non-GE counterparts.”
[ii] That same conclusion has been reached by other respected scientific and regulatory bodies, including the
European Commission, the
World Health Organization, and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Consumers who want to purchase non-GMO foods should be
able to do so and feel confident that claims are truthful and
accurate—not just marketing ploys.
I understand that some consumers may wish to purchase a non-GMO food
for reasons other than safety. Some consumers may not want to support
developers of GM crops. Other consumers may be concerned about the
environmental impacts of engineered crops, such as the development or
herbicide-resistant weeds or insecticide-resistant pests. How should
those consumers decide when to purchase a product that has been
designated as non-GMO?
Some companies market their food product as “non-GMO” to create a
nonexistent distinction that gives them a competitive advantage
(sometimes at a premium price). For example, Tropicana Orange Juice
includes the “Non-GMO Project” seal on its package, yet its sole
ingredient is oranges, and there are no commercially grown, genetically
engineered oranges. Every brand of orange juice is naturally “non-GMO,”
provided the only ingredient is oranges. The same can be said for
Emerald Natural Almonds or Woodstock Peanut Butter, which both have
“Non-GMO Product” seals even though their only ingredient is almonds or
peanuts, and there are no GM varieties of those nuts.
The
Non-GMO Project is the largest verifier of non-GMO foods with more than
43,000 products
bearing its seal. While it discloses its verification standards if
consumers want to read them, it can hardly be called a neutral provider
of information. The Project’s website includes “alternative facts” about
the safety of foods and ingredients made from current GM crops. For
example, there is a false statement that “
there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs.” The Project claims that “
[m]ost
developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe and have significant
restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.”
However, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, South
Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, China,
India, and numerous other countries recognize that GMO crops are safe.
The Non-GMO Project is sowing doubts about the safety of GM products to
increase sales of its verified products. It should not be allowed to
make those false statements. In addition, with its unscientific
perspective on GMOs, the Non-GMO Project seal should not become the
default national marketplace standard for non-GMO product verification.
While most non-GMO labeled products in the supermarket include the
“non-GMO Project” seal, some companies self-determine their own non-GMO
status. For example,
Amy’s Kitchen’s frozen Indian dinners have a green “NO GMOs” label; the box for
Quorn Chik’n Cutlets states “MADE WITH NON-GMO INGREDIENTS;”
Buitoni’s pasta labels say “NO GMO INGREDIENTS;” and labels for Schar’s Cocoa Wafers have “NON GMO” in a white circle.
King Arthur
flour products have two different claims: its 100% Whole Wheat Flour
claims to be “NON-GMO,” while its Unbleached Self-Rising Flour states
that it was “Sourced Non-GMO.” (In fact, no wheat flour on the market
comes from GE wheat.) Each of those companies established a standard
for what it considers “non-GMO” and created its own symbol and language
to market that claim to consumers. For the consumer, it is often
difficult—if not impossible—to find out what a company considers to be
“non-GMO” (some companies have information on their website while others
do not).
Consumers who want to purchase non-GMO foods should be able to do so
and feel confident that claims are truthful and accurate—not just
marketing ploys. Instead, when shoppers take a trip down a grocery
store’s aisles today, the non-GMO claims they see come from either (1)
an organization that spreads inaccuracies about the safety of foods
containing ingredients from GMOs, or (2) self-certifying companies that
use their own symbols and often unknown verification standards. The
federal government needs to establish a national definition of “non-GMO”
and oversee how that term is used. While there is nothing unsafe about
foods made from GMOs, if consumers want to purchase a non-GMO product,
they should have confidence that the claim is truthful, accurate, and
verified by an independent and neutral authority.
Until the federal government establishes a non-GMO standard for food
products, consumers who want non-GMO foods should look for the “organic”
label. Organic foods must meet a uniform federal standard (including
that they be
free from genetically engineered ingredients),
and “organic” claims are verified by an independent third party. As
Annie’s Shells and White Cheddar Macaroni and Cheese says on its
package, “Organic is always non GMO.”
[i]
A genetically modified organism is created when a scientist removes a
gene from one organism (or a specific variety of an organism) and
transfers that gene to a different organism (or a different variety)
using tools that allow for the manipulation of DNA at the cellular
level.
[ii]
The National Academy of Sciences report refers to genetically
engineered (GE) crops. For purposes of this article, a genetically
engineered crop and a GMO crop are identical.
media to advocate for science,
as he explains how innovation and growth in agriculture are critical for food
security and global progress.
media to advocate for science,
as he explains how innovation and growth in agriculture are critical for food
security and global progress.
