Mandatory labelling for all food products that contain genetically modified ingredients seems like a good idea at first blush.
Who isn’t in favour of truth in labelling and consumer choice?
The problem is that it is anything but truth, and it really provides consumers with no real choices at all.
The issue of mandatory GM labels reached the front pages once again re-cently, thanks to a vote in Washington state in which the concept was rejected by a margin of 54.8 percent opposed to 45.2 percent in favour.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
There were hopes on one side and fears on the other that the Washington initiative, if passed, would become the wedge that ultimately cracks open the issue and forces jurisdictions across North America to deal with it head-on.
Addressing it may not be a bad idea, but the way Washington state legislators went about it was unlikely to bring about the desired results.
If the goal of mandatory GM labels is to provide clarity to consumers about the ingredients in their food, and it should be, then it falls well short. In fact, it compounds the problem by forcing consumers to sift through indiscernible and meaningless information on their food labels.
The ingredients listed on many products are already impossible to pronounce and cast an incredibly wide net to make sure all legal responsibilities are neatly encapsulated. To add a ubiquitous label statement that a particular item “may contain GM” would be hard to take seriously.
Mandatory GM labels are counterproductive in that they stir in confusion rather than clarifying.
For example, what if small amounts of tofu are used in making a vegetarian lasagne? Tofu is made from soy milk, which is made from soybeans, which are estimated to be 93 percent from genetically modified varieties in the U.S. The tomato sauce ingredients, the pasta, the vegetable oil and myriad other ingredients also need to be assessed for GM content.
What, too, happens when modern testing methods capable of detecting tiny amounts of residual GM material find extremely small amounts of GM, a fraction of a percent, that could have been picked up from dust contained in a previous rail car load?
The “may contain” statement is the only possible way to meet the requirements of a mandatory law.
Yet producers today must listen to consumer demands or risk being seen as paternalistic and inflexible. We are living in an age of niche marketing, and producers should embrace those opportunities.
The way to accomplish that in a clear and meaningful way is to differentiate products with a GM free label.
Consumers are demanding openness through all levels of the food production chain, farms included. And when they don’t get it, it raises a cloud of suspicion. That might not be fair, but perception is what matters most in these types of cases.
A GM free label option not only provides farmers the ability to serve this niche, but it also ticks off two other boxes on the successful strategy checklist: clarity and consumer choice.
Labels should educate, inform and help consumers feel confident about their food. They should not obfuscate or mislead.
Products that can offer the GM free label would also be in line to earn premium prices, something that would be difficult to justify without the added attention that label statement brings.
It is time for GM free labels, but it is also time for food safety advocates, politicians and health experts to show leadership by providing common sense regulations.
The rules for such label claims must clarify exactly what GM free means. It is not a health claim, only a guarantee that products are free of GM content, below an agreed upon tolerance for low level presence.
