Running head: THE RIGHT TO KNOW

The Right to Know

Cecelia Johnson-Chavis
The Restaurant School at Walnut Hill College
1.

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

A hungry customer roams through the aisles of a Walmart supercenter seeking

some snacks. He makes his way to the chip aisle, where he is greeted with an
overwhelming number of options; there are at least 15 flavors of Lays Potato Chips
alone. If at any time he decides hed like to add some Oreos to his basket, he can choose
between Original, Double Stuffed, Golden, Birthday Cake, Peanut Butter, Berry Burst
Smoothie, Mint, and Lemon before he must even glance at the other dozens of sugarsaturated goods. Grocery store aisles are littered with what seems to be a vast variety of
processed foods coming in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and packages ready to meet any
need. When it comes to processed and mass produced foods, consumers are bombarded
with the perception of choice and control over what they purchase and eat.
In reality, consumers of mass produced processed foods have very little decision
making power, particularly when it comes to the ingredients of these foods and their
origins. The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization that was formed in 2005 to
create a standard understanding and verification system for non-genetically modified
organisms in the food industry. Today it is the only private verification authority for nonGMOs in North America. The Non-GMO Project identifies the nations top five GMO
crops as corn, cotton, canola, soy, and sugar beets, and asserts that up to 80% of the
countrys processed foods contain ingredients derived from these crops.
GMOs first made their way into the food market in the 1990s and have since been
met with rapidly growing concerns about the health implications that they pose to us and
our environment. Food companies are not currently required to indicate whether or not
their products contain genetically modified ingredients. Without these labels, consumers

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

are ill-equipped to make informed decisions about the quality and safety of the food that
they purchase and use to nourish themselves and their children. The United States
Government does not require these labels on the grounds that they would fail to provide
material facts about potential consequences associated with foods containing genetically
modified ingredients (FDA, 2015). In reality, the government has succumb to the
pressure of the food industry giants and put aside the concerns of the citizens that it is
supposed to serve.
Those that oppose mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products
claim that because the government regards GMOs as generally safe, mandatory labels are
not necessary. Customers concerned about the safety of genetically modified ingredients
will be appeased by a voluntary labeling system, meaning that they can choose to
purchase products that are certified organic or verified in compliance with the standards
set by organizations like the Non-GMO Project. Representatives of some of the main
producers of GMOs claim that mandatory labeling could lead to dramatically increased
consumer costs, and that customers would be better suited by voluntary labeling
programs.
A Consumer Update page published by the FDA assures that Food and food
ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply to food and food
ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants (FDA, 2015). The same update reveals
that developers of GMOs are responsible for conducting their own safety assessments of
the products that they plan to bring to market. The assessments must identify the
attributes caused by the newly introduced genetic traits, compare the nutrition of the

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

genetically modified product to the unadulterated product, and identify whether any new
material in food made with the genetically modified ingredient could cause toxicity or an
allergic response when eaten. Allowing GMO developers to conduct their own safety
assessments leaves room for bias and manipulation of the results. To ensure that the
genetically modified products brought to market are truly as safe as their traditionally
grown counterparts, the assessments must be done by an authorized and impartial party.
The most concerning fact revealed by the FDAs update states that although it is
encouraged, developers of GMOs are not required to consult with the FDA before
marketing their products. In the existing application of the so called regulation of
genetically modified ingredients, there is almost no accountability required of the
developers of these products. Labels identifying products that contain GMOs would
allow for long term traceability of these ingredients, and would offer the opportunity for
intervention should pressing health concerns be surfaced.
In a 2014 hearing, the FDA reaffirmed its 1992 decision that genetically
engineered ingredients do not constitute a material change in the product, and that
mandatory labels that indicate their presence are unnecessary. FDA Commissioner,
Margaret Hamburg makes the claim, The way FDA has for many years interpreted the
law and it has been supported by the courts is that mandatory labeling is appropriate and
required when there is a fault claim or misbranding. Misbranding is an impossibility if
branding does not take place. Under this authority, the lack of mandatory branding
absolves developers of GMOs of responsibility for potential risks associated with their
products.

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Acting head of the Molecular Biology Unit of the Abu Dhabi Food Control
Authority, Jagadeesan Premanadh explains that the position taken by US agencies such as
the FDA follows a principle called substantive evidence. It follows the idea that a
modified food should be considered the same as, and as safe as a conventional food if it
demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food (2011,
pp. 39). Opponents of this way thinking argue that it is intended to serve as an excuse for
not requiring toxicological tests. On an even more basic level, this model of omission of
information ignores and violates the concerns of citizens who follow strict diets, such as
vegetarians who may unknowingly ingest plants modified with animal DNA.
Countries who have adopted mandatory GMO labeling policies such as those
within the European Union use the labeling system as a preemptive measure. Nearly no
tests have taken place that observe the long term effects of foods containing genetically
modified ingredients, so it is incredibly difficult to have a comprehensive understanding
of the risks. The concern is highly justified when taking a look at the timeline of outbreak
of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease where the impact on humans
was not detected for nearly ten years after the initial effects were seen in cows (Center
For Food Safety, 2015).
One of the most loudly voiced points of opposition to mandatory GMO labeling is
the anticipated increased cost to customers assuming that the mandatory labels cause a
shift in consumer demand toward non-GMO ingredients. Although the cost of labeling
itself is likely insignificant, the producers would have to cover the costs of finding more
expensive non-GMO ingredients, segregating the non-GMO products and processes, and
testing the new products, says James E. McWilliams, author of How We Can Truly Eat

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Responsibly. However, a study done by Consumer Union, a non-profit branch of

Consumer Reports suggests that labeling a product as containing genetically modified
ingredients may only cost a company $2.30 per person, per year. Even then, due to
marketing concepts such as price stickiness and competitive pricing, a companies may
opt to absorb the costs rather than let them fall to customers (Lee, 2015).
Premanadh says that Labeling is the primary means of communication between
producers and consumerslabeling helps consumers to identify the product of interest
and its contents, allowing the consumer to exercise freedom of choice (Premanandh,
2011, pp.38). The rapid progression of food allergies, concerns with sustainability, and
general interest in the integrity and quality of food have made todays consumers a more
informed population than ever before. A poll taken by the Associated Press showed that
66% of Americans favor requiring food manufacturers to put labels on their products
indicating if they contain any genetically modified ingredients (Associated Press, 2015).
Until mandatory GMO labeling is enforced, consumers will continue to be denied the
right to make informed decisions regarding foods that they purchase and consume, and
will be deceived into believing that they have total control over what they consume.
Producers of GMOs will continue to be absolved of their responsibility to provide proven
safe, healthy, and sustainable products.

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

References
Associated Press. (2014). The AP GfK poll. Retrieved from http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/AP-GfK_Poll_December_2014_GMOs.pdf
Center for Food Safety. (2015). Timeline of mad cow disease outbreaks. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1040/mad-cow-disease/timeline-mad-cowdisease-outbreaks#
Latiano, J., Kunau, J., Kucinich, E., & Seifert, J. (Producers and Directors). (2013). GMO OMG
[Motion Picture]. United States: Submarine Deluxe
Lee, M. (2015, April 6). Would GMO labeling requirement cost $500 more in groceries per
family a year? The Washington Post. Retrieved from
McWilliams, J. (2014). The price of your right to know. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/gmo_food_labels_wo
uld_label_laws_in_vermont_maine_connecticut_increase_food.1.html
Premanadh, J. (2010). Global consensus Need of the hour for genetically modified organisms
(GMO) labeling. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. 17(1), 37-44. Retrieved from
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jcb/journal/v17/n1/full/jcb201024a.html
Stillwell, M., & Van Dyke, B. (1999). An activists handbook on genetically modified organisms
and the WTO. Retrieved from
http://ciel.org/Publications/GMOHandbookSecondEdition.pdf

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Trager, R. (2014). US states reject GM labeling laws. Retrieved from
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/11/us-states-reject-genetically-modified-foodlabeling
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2015). FDAs role in regulating safety of GE foods.
Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm352067.htm