![]()
Boston — MY first exposure to biotechnology was from my father. He grew up with juvenile
Twenty-six years later, I became a founder of a biotechnology company that makes products with genetically modified organisms for the food industry. Like 88 percent of my fellow scientists, I believe that 89 percent of Americans who believe that bioengineered ingredients should be identified on food packaging.
To me, there’s no contradiction in these two beliefs. For years, scientists have celebrated the many benefits of genetic engineering, from increased crop yields to improved nutritional content. They have also been embracing transparency, in the form of open access to research findings and calls for increased public engagement. It doesn’t make sense to advocate a better understanding of biotechnology in one breath and, in the other, tell consumers they don’t need to know when that technology is used to make their food.
Foods with bioengineered ingredients are safe, but shrouding them in secrecy breeds doubt and fear. Clear, informative labeling is a first step toward transparency that can build trust and educate consumers. But trust has to go both ways: Biotechnology companies and food producers must trust consumers to educate themselves and make informed decisions.
Some major food companies, most notably
Campbell Soups, have recently announced that they will start putting G.M.O. labeling on their products. This is a good first step, but more companies need to follow. The same goes for a new labeling law in Vermont — which is likely to set a de facto national standard — that requires that foods containing bioengineered ingredients be labeled with the words “produced with genetic engineering.” This is not nearly enough information for consumers to make informed choices.
Which ingredients are made using genetic engineering? And more important, why? It’s not enough to simply know that something is engineered; is the technology enabling the use of particular herbicides, decreasing the need for sprayed
The exemptions in the Vermont law also mean that the labels appearing this summer will leave a significant percentage of foods containing bioengineered ingredients unlabeled. Foods sold in restaurants — accounting for nearly a third of all American calories — will be exempt, as will alcoholic beverages.
The law also makes exceptions for bioengineered ingredients that are present at less than 0.9 percent of the final weight of the product. These may include processing aids like genetically engineered yeast or enzymes used in baking and brewing. These may not add much weight to a product, but they’re important details.
Exempting such products means that many cheeses — a major industry in Vermont — produced with bioengineered ingredients will not be labeled. But an estimated 90 percent of American cheese, for example, is made with cultured chymosin, a vegan rennet replacement made using genetically engineered Aspergillus fungi.
Also excluded are cultured ingredients — flavorings,
Critics of mandatory labeling have used these omissions and inconsistencies as arguments for maintaining the unlabeled status quo. However, inadequate labels are not a reason to not label; they are a reason to push for better labels.
Digital disclosure programs like SmartLabel, which would have been part of a national labeling proposal by Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, would allow consumers to get information by scanning a code on a product package. Such programs are effective, however, only when they are mandatory, national and used in concert with printed labels.
As Congress debates nationwide labeling requirements, its members should remember that the American people need federal mandatory labeling guidelines for all bioengineered ingredients. Clear, consistent and truly informative labels will mean that consumers have not just the right to know about their food, but the ability to think about how it is made.
Continue reading the main story
