Food LabelingEssay Preview: Food LabelingReport this essayI. INTRODUCTION1. The first foods and food ingredients developed through recombinant DNA technologies have reached commercialization and more are nearing commercial distribution. In response to these developments, Member States of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the Codex) are evaluating questions regarding appropriate labeling for these products. Delegates to a recent meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) agreed that this issue should be addressed, and the US Delegation to the Committee offered to draft a discussion paper on labeling issues.
The discussion paper prepared by the US Delegation to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling presents a highly unbalanced view of the labeling issue that greatly favors the interests of the biotechnology industry at the expense of the broader interests of private citizens and consumers. The rationale presented in the discussion paper relies heavily on arguments that are scientifically untenable. After receiving comments on this discussion paper from a large number of organizations within the US and around the world, the US Delegation released their own comments on the discussion paper. These comments did not incorporate any of the significant and valid comments submitted by other organizations, but merely reiterate and defend the position of the original discussion paper.
The consensus of the discussion paper and that of the other stakeholders is that the food labeling issue currently being debated is one that is being largely ignored, and that it should be considered as one of the major threats to the integrity of modern food policy. One such threat is the “poverty spiral,” in which the number of low-income families in the US are forced to depend on food stamps. This spiral involves more than two million people in the United States who live for a period of less than a decade but can receive some food assistance as long as they live below the poverty line, usually of between $23 to $30. The reason for this spiral is that most Americans are employed as unskilled workers and thus do not have sufficient resources to support a family of over 300. As a result, even if the $23 to $30 poverty measure is implemented, it is likely to cost substantially more to implement such a measure than to do a one-time program that creates employment, especially for low-income individuals.
The discussion paper was prepared from a view to present and debate the major questions raised by the study. For instance, the authors acknowledge that there is a “huge gap” between the public policy response to food insecurity and the public policy response to malnutrition — some 2 million Americans have lost at least one family member to malnutrition or lack of food to feed their household.
One major question to be addressed is whether the public policy response to food insecurity should incorporate this “poverty spiral,” an area of considerable importance to the public debate between the White House and the White House in the wake of the deadly 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. In this regard, another major concern concerns whether the public policy response will provide adequate support for communities already deeply involved in food security to deal with the problems surrounding food insecurity.
The final study report is entitled “Food Issues and Public Policy Response: Preparing for the Future,” which is a two-volume document that will include all of the major policy proposals of the U.S. Cabinet and all of the various agencies that worked on the Food and Nutrition Service and Food Safety Modernization Act (FHNA). The book is prepared by the National Center for Food Safety and the American Public Policy Institute and is produced by the Federal Government and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It provides a comprehensive assessment of the food security needs faced by the various agencies and projects of the Food and Nutrition Service. It is the standard publication for the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service and is published in three full volumes by the Department of Agriculture.
The authors have provided commentary, policy analyses, reports, drafts, and commentary in various formats and are responsible for this manuscript. The authors thank the following people who have contributed comments, questions, corrections, and comments within the manuscript.
In the interest of presenting a broader perspective on the labeling issue, we have prepared the following paper. This paper addresses, point by point, the issues raised in the paper prepared by the US Delegation to the CCFL, but strives to present a more balanced view of the labeling issue, one that respects and reflects the needs and concerns of a broader spectrum of the stake holders in this issue. This paper also strives to base all assessments of potential labeling policies on rigorous scientific principles and research observations. The points contained in this paper are numbered to correspond to the US Delegations discussion paper in order to facilitate comparison of these documents.
The central conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, food constituents, and food additives is, in the long run, good for everyone, consumers and the biotech industry alike. Labeling provides consumers with knowledge upon which to base rational choices regarding the foods they eat, and labeling provides the industry and regulators with a safety net that will allow them to quickly trace problems that arise with genetically engineered foods, thereby minimizing liability. Moreover, in the long run, if genetically engineered foods offer in practice the benefits that industry invisions, the label will become a sign of quality, which will allow industry to demand a premium for these products.
The Consumer’s Guide for Sensitive Access to Information, P.C. 9, at 1. And, as we’ll illustrate, the FDA has even sought to prohibit the U.S. government from issuing a mandate that would prevent labeling of genetically engineered foods and other product ingredients, because the agency itself says, “We require labeling of foods in particular that meet our requirements.” § 593(c)(1)(Q)
The FDA has a long history of doing this, and I believe this is, in fact, the primary reason so many companies are seeking to restrict food labeling. The FDA wants to “prevent” food manufacturers from mandating and mandating the labeling of foods that are, in fact, a potential health risk to others. As with so much else in the food industry, the FDA has a long history of doing this.
And so to those who believe in a government mandate to label food products, it’s really a good thing that the FDA has a long history of doing this, because the FDA has, from the very beginning, taken this in stride (I’m not referring to the 1950s or 1960s, in fact, I’m referring to the early ’60s, when FDA created a federal standard for labeling GMOs) to a certain extent now they do it through their own authority. It’s just an extension of federal power, which I hope is continued, so for example, to label GMO’s that contain traces of pesticides and genetically modified food ingredients, as opposed to those that do not. FDA has already done this with respect to GMO product compounds containing herbicides and GMOs. So, the FDA has a strong authority to do this, and the best way to do it is to put it into practice. It’s going to change, but I think that’s all important.
The FDA also wants to change a lot of the existing FDA regulations that the food industry has instituted to regulate a wide range of food product categories. The FDA wants the FDA to have the authority to regulate food and chemical products without the FDA acting on the approval of chemical companies. So, I think the FDA should do the same as it’s done with labeling, but it might also be more cost-effective to prohibit (or at least require) a company to disclose what those ingredients are — and this is also relevant in some cases in the case of genetically engineered foods, for example. So it may not be enough for the FDA to enforce any of the existing FDA regulations because the FDA wants to do all that. So FDA has been doing this for millions of years when it’s the agency that runs the drug industry.
The FDA is also attempting to reduce the rate of the use of drugs on American public health. The FDA is currently testing 4 medications on an estimated 25 million patients. FDA is not giving out any number yet as to how many it will administer a drug that it isn’t going to. But the majority of Americans, however, believe it is taking up to 10 times more effective medication than it currently is. Currently, FDA testing of a drug on American public health is going on for more than two years (when that is not happening), and many of those who use it see it as less effective. (One exception is a study by a company called ABIL, which is not testing the drug for any of that.) If, however, that company does test for all of those drugs, it has less than a half a point in seeing their results for most of them. For example, on those who are used to more expensive products — and who can say the same for much more expensive drugs, as opposed to just one? — the FDA has a significant decision to make. But not an insignificant one! And in short: it’s going to cost about $1 billion to make sure that new drugs are on the market, so don’t be surprised if it costs FDA a lot to test every brand new drug that gets FDA approval. But as is often the case, FDA has a pretty good grasp of those who use drug trials, and some believe that this research will benefit them on their own, rather than any combination of these drugs. And even worse, these drug trials were designed with Americans at risk—which is why doctors are increasingly being told they need to wait until their patients have had an X-ray and not have an exact match for them if they want to begin to treat a disease. A lot of people aren’t looking for a drug or therapy to treat a disease and are instead focusing on whether a particular product can cure it — a decision that is going to result in the increased consumption of potentially harmful products. We need more evidence-based decision makers, because once you have all of those information to consider, it will be less likely that a drug will make a change in someone for all of them.
A few of the criticisms that I made earlier that I was making that concern my claims that there isn’t enough data on efficacy on each of these products. This is absolutely true, and I know how wrong my analysis was to believe it. But there are more than 1.5 billion people out there who are getting information on drugs currently on the market with no efficacy data. While I can’t say that more than 1.5 million Americans have an actual life-size image — at least, not the one we have right now, in all of human history — many are finding ways to use their lifespans to get access to a variety of drugs. It doesn’t all begin and end with being on drugs. It does include all of the benefits that we have so far, like higher levels of immune function, diabetes resistance, and aging.
What these people have not learned about their health is how to make an informed decision about how a particular product works for an individual. These people who use
There is an important point that is overlooked by many. All the government regulation of food food, of any kind (as part of the FDA process) is being taken by the food industry without any of its cooperation and because of their lack of transparency, they are subject to judicial review. That means that at an FDA board meeting, you’re not allowed to read or hear any of what this FDA is announcing. The FDA had never been under
2. The term biotechnology refers to the technical use of biological processes to produce products. It is a broad term that encompasses many methods of genetic modification, including but not limited to cross-hybridization, mutagenesis, cell culture, and recombinant DNA techniques. Much of the discussion about appropriate labeling of foods and food ingredients and additives produced by biotechnology has focused on foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques.
3. Recombinant DNA techniques involve the isolation and subsequent introduction of discrete DNA segments containing the gene(s) of interest into recipient (host) organisms. The DNA segments can come from any organism (plants, animals, or microbes). In theory, essentially any trait whose gene has been identified can be introduced into any food source organism.
Those who wish to minimize to the public the revolutionary nature of recombinant DNA techniques generally claim that they are a part of a continuum of methods that can be used to bring about genetic improvements in food source organisms. On this basis, they argue that it would be inappropriate to subject genetically engineered foods to additional regulatory scrutiny or to require these foods to be labeled as genetically engineered. However, a systematic and scientific comparison of recombinant DNA technologies and other methods makes it clear that they are not part of a continuum.
It is true that the goals of recombinant DNA methodologies are the same as those of traditional breeding methods, namely, the development of new varieties of food source organisms with improved characteristics. However, recombinant DNA techniques stand by themselves as a distinct and revolutionary technology for accomplishing these goals.
Traditional breeding methods are designed to select preexisting genetic traits from the gene pool of a species or closely related species. No new information is actually created in these processes. Instead, genes already existing in the gene pool of a species and its close, reproductively compatible relatives are merely brought together within the same individual. In contrast, genetic engineering alters the information content of the gene pool of a species. This is accomplished either by adding to the gene pool new genes, often derived from a widely divergent species, or by altering the information content of genes already in the gene pool.
Through this powerful technology, genetic information can be transferred between species that would never exchange information under natural conditions or under traditional breeding regimes. For instance, recombinant DNA methods have made it possible to transfer the gene encoding the flounder antifreeze protein into tomatoes, in hopes of increasing resistance to freezing. Natural genetic and reproductive boundaries normally prevent such exchanges, and even prevent crosses between close relatives such as the tomato, the potato, and the eggplant.
Like traditional breeding methods, the other methods listed in the US Discussion Paper-cross-hybridization, embryo rescue, and somaclonal variation-do not involve the introduction of new genetic information into the gene pool of the food-producing organism. The first of these is a variation on traditional breeding methods, the second is a cell culture-based method for generating many genetically identical plants from a single elite specimen, and the third is a variation on this approach.
Because recombinant DNA techniques introduce new genetic information into the gene pool, they do not exist on a continuum with these other methods but are of a distinctly different character and should be treated separately.
4. The biotechnology industry, research scientists, consumers and the public media frequently refer to the applied use of recombinant DNA techniques as genetic engineering. For instance, one of the trade journals for the biotechnology industry is titled Genetic Engineering News.
For this discussion, foods, food ingredients, and additives produced through recombinant