THE NON-GMO REPORT, December 2005

www.non-gmoreport.com

Law professors from the universities of Missouri and Texas criticized the US Food and Drug Administration's policy on voluntary labeling of foods not containing genetically modified ingredients. Speaking at a conference on GM food labeling held recently at the University of Missouri, Philip Peters, professor of law, University of Missouri, and Thomas McGarity, professor of law, University of Texas-Austin, said the FDA's policy restricts companies' ability to inform consumers about the non-GMO status of their products.

Peters, director of the Bioethics/Biotechnology and Society Program, University of Missouri, said the FDA makes labeling foods as non-GMO "a real project" for food manufacturers.

This is because the agency recommends that food manufacturers shun the use of acronyms such as "GMO" and "non-GMO," terms such as "genetically modified," claims that the product is "GMOfree," and any implications that a non-GMO product is superior to a GM counterpart.

Because of these FDA "taboos," Peters said the agency tells food manufacturers that, "You are welcome to sell these things (non-GMO products) as long as you don't tell consumers what they are." Peters argued that the term "GMO" is recognized and used worldwide. Further, he said that while "GM" is a term preferred by critics of biotechnology, "bioengineered" and "biotechnology" are terms favored by biotech proponents and are the labeling terms recommended by the FDA. "This is control over terms of the debate," he said.

McGarity, who served as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Technology Assessment, also criticized the FDA's non-GMO labeling policy, saying recommended labeling terms, such as "bioengineered," are incomprehensible to consumers. "Consumers think of genetic modification, not what FDA scientists think," he said. "Make the label to be what consumers understand." McGarity described the FDA non-GMO labeling rules as "midnight guidelines," because they were issued just before the change from the Clinton to Bush presidential administrations in January 2001.

The FDA received more than 50,000 public comments on the draft guidelines, but they were never finalized.

"Mandatory purchasing of GM foods" Peters said the FDA applies a double standard because it allows companies to use terms, such as "fat-free" and "cholesterol- free," but not "GMOfree." "We not only have no mandatory labeling, the FDA has put barriers in the way of voluntary labeling. As a result, we have mandatory purchasing of GM foods," he said.

McGarity said the FDA's policy favoring voluntary labels on GM foods is inconsistent with its mandatory labeling requirement on irradiated foods.

Peters argued for voluntary labeling of GM foods because implementing mandatory labeling would be impossible in the current political climate.

"The philosophy and enthusiasm for biotech is supported by the government," he said.

Peters said the FDA should allow the use of acronyms, require no disclaimers, such as that required with labeling of rBGH-free dairy products, and allow convenient placement of labels on food products. "A policy that encourages rather than discourages voluntary labeling of non-GM foods would help educate consumers," he said.

"Strong push to not have anything impede GM technology" McGarity criticized the FDA's policy of substantial equiva-lence, which says that a GM food that shares similar health and nutritional characteristics with its conventional counterparts is essentially the same.

"It's hard to argue that adding a new protein is not adding a new substance," he said.