Transcript Producing Transgenic Plants

Labeling of Genetically
Engineered Foods
Pat Byrne
Department of Soil & Crop Sciences
Colorado State University
Genetically
engineered
Labeling of genetically
engineered (GE) food may be
an issue in Colorado in 2002.
• Sen. Ron Tupa (Boulder) may re-introduce a
mandatory labeling bill in the Colorado
legislature during the current session.
• A citizens initiative effort is planned for summer
of 2002.
US adoption of transgenic crops:
the big 3
Percent of acreage
80
Cotton
60
Soybean
40
20
Corn
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Other transgenic crops on the market
• Canola
• Papaya
• Summer squash
• Potato (but not for long)
• Tomato (1995-97, then withdrawn)
• Sweet corn (approved, but not grown)
X
Impact at the supermarket
Although the number of GE crops is small, the
impact is huge: an estimated 60-70% of
processed foods in grocery stores include at
least one GE component (mostly corn or soy).
Pro-labeling argument
• Consumers have a right to know what's in
their food, especially concerning products
for which health and environmental
concerns have been raised.
Anti-labeling response
• Labels on GE food imply a warning about
health effects, whereas no significant
differences between GE and conventional
foods have been detected.
Pro-labeling argument
• Surveys have indicated that a majority of
Americans support mandatory labeling.
Anti-labeling response
•
Most surveys have not included
information on the cost of labeling. A
recent Canadian study estimated a 9-10%
increase in food prices.
Survey results from Colorado
(Drs. Sue Hine and Maria Loureiro)
• 437 supermarket shoppers in four Front Range
communities were surveyed in fall of 2000.
• 78% supported labeling of GE foods.
• However, consumers were not willing to pay a
premium for labeling.
• Those most likely to favor mandatory labeling
were female, older, and considered themselves
less well informed about biotechnology.
Pro-labeling argument
• For religious or ethical reasons many
Americans want to avoid eating animal
products, including animal DNA.
Anti-labeling response
•
•
No plant products currently on the market
include animal DNA.
Those who wish to buy non-GE food already
have an option: to purchase certified organic
foods, which cannot include GE ingredients.
•
Anti-labeling argument
The U.S. food system infrastructure (storage,
transportation, and processing facilities)
could not currently accommodate the need
for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
Pro-labeling response
• 22 countries have announced plans to
institute some form of mandatory labeling.
The U.S. could follow their lead in handling
the logistics of product separation.
•
Anti-labeling argument
If labeling is done at all, it should be
legislated at the federal level, given our
national / international food supply.
Pro-labeling response
• Sometimes issues need to be started at the
state or local levels, before the federal
government pays attention, e.g., standards for
certification of organic foods.
Issues in labeling of GE food
• Mandatory or voluntary labeling?
 Mandatory for both GE and non-GE foods
 Voluntary for both GE and non-GE
 Mandatory for GE, voluntary for non-GE
Issues in labeling of GE food
• What constitutes a GE food product?
 Which technologies included as GE?
Generally, limited to transgenic techniques,
but some legislation might include breeding
techniques in use for decades.
 All ingredients or just major ingredients?
Issues in labeling of GE food
 What threshold level -- 0% 1%?
5%?
Different countries have adopted different values.
 Products of livestock fed transgenic feed?
No evidence of transgenic DNA or protein has
been found in meat, milk, or eggs.
Issues in labeling of GE food
• What language to use on a label?
Genetically modified
Genetically engineered
Bioengineered
Product of biotechnology
Product of modern biotechnology
May contain genetically engineered ingredients?
Information on why genetic engineering was
done, e.g., for insect resistance?
Issues in labeling of GE food
• How to verify claims?
Content-based verification: Test for physical
presence of foreign DNA or protein.
Analogy: vitamin content of foods.
Process-based verification: Require detailed
record-keeping of seed source, field location,
harvest, transport, and storage.
Analogy: shade-grown coffee.
“Traceability”
Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Colorado Citizens’ Initiative, 2000
• GE organism is one that has been altered at the
molecular or cellular level by means including
but not limited to recombinant DNA techniques.
• If any ingredient is > 0.1% GE material.
• If GE inputs were used in production.
• Livestock products if animal was fed GE material
or treated with GE hormones or drugs.
Current FDA policy requires
that GE food be labeled if
• It has a significantly different nutritional
property.
• It contains an allergen that consumers would
not expect to be present.
• It contains a toxicant at levels beyond
acceptable limits.
For other cases, FDA proposes voluntary labeling
Not genetically modified
GMO free
X
X
Virtually all
commercial foods
have been genetically
modified.
“Free” implies zero,
which is difficult to verify.
Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling
We do not use ingredients
produced using biotechnology.
This product contains cornmeal that
was produced using biotechnology.
Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling
This product contains high oleic acid
soybean oil from soybeans developed
using biotechnology to decrease the
amount of saturated fat.
“High oleic acid soybean oil” is
mandatory. The rest is voluntary,
and considered acceptable by FDA.
Proposed FDA policy for voluntary labeling
This cantaloupe was not genetically
engineered.
But,
This cantaloupe, like all cantaloupes
on the market, was not genetically
engineered.
X May be
misleading
For more information on GE crops:
www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/