If genetically modified foods are out there, should they be labeled as such?
A few states have taken labeling into their own hands. Alaska passed a bill in 2005 requiring labels on genetically engineered fish; Vermont has required labeling of genetically engineered seeds since 2004; and Maine in 2001 passed legislation allowing food makers to label food products as GMO-free.
Food and Drug Administration public-affairs specialist Stephanie Kwisnek says manufacturers nationwide are free to label the presence or absence of genetically engineered food in their products.
But, she added in an e-mail, "there must be something tangibly different about the food product -- not the process by which it's made -- for the FDA to require labeling."
Mandatory labeling is important for two reasons, says Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer-advocacy group. For one thing, labeling would give consumers the choice to eat biotech foods or avoid them -- whether for health concerns, environmental reasons or both, he says.
Labeling is also crucial for understanding the potential health effects associated with genetically engineered foods before more enter the market, Kimbrell says.
"GMOs have been hidden into our foods," he says. "Without labeling, we don't have the ability to prove them unsafe."
Absent labeling, says Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Assn., shoppers can stick to organic products.
"It's one reason the organic-food industry is growing," Cummins says. "It's a sure-fire way to avoid even trace levels of GMOs."
The Organic Labeling Debate
-
The label debate
By Elena Conis
Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2007
Straight to the Source
