Mandatory positive labelling on GE foods: imperative or futile?

(This is a paper I wrote for one of my courses - Ethics of Modern Biotechnology, while I was studying at the University of Wisconsin-Madison)

The presence of genetically engineered (GE) crops, and food products made with GE crops/their derivates has skyrocketed in the market. This calls to deliberation whether disclosing that certain food may contain GE components or may contain derivatives of GE components is required or is unnecessary information for the public. This form of a disclosure would entail a positive label indicative of the presence of GE or bioengineered components. This paper will explore an argument in favour of mandatory positive labelling on GE foods, acknowledge possible objections and respond to it and explore the argument in context of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

The information regarding the content and the process by which food was grown/produced is most relevant to and pertains directly to the consumers, regardless of their interest in that information. Consumers have the right to information regarding food products, and possible involvement of GE components, to have all the information needed to decide on the purchase of the food product. Consumer autonomy over food choices is essential and allows consumers to make an informed choice, meaning a choice made based on all the relevant information (Streiffer and Rubel, 2004; pg. 226). However, the caveat is that all the relevant information needs to be available to make a genuine informed decision and the burden of providing this information to consumers falls on the producers. Besides, surveys have confirmed that most US consumers support mandatory positive labelling on GE foods so that they can make food decisions based on their religious beliefs, beliefs regarding GE, dietary restrictions, etc., and because it is their right to know what they are putting in their bodies. Besides, when it comes to GE people are also concerned regarding the possible unknown side-effects of consuming GE food, which makes mandatory positive labelling critical to facilitate consumer decision making (FDA, 2001; pg. 3) (Streiffer and Rubel, 2004; pg. 224). Additionally, the difference between voluntary labelling and mandatory labelling needs to be considered to fully understand why mandatory positive labelling is important to respect consumer autonomy. When the producers are given full freedom to choose whether they want to indicate if the product contains GE components, the producers will exploit this freedom and not label products containing GE to avoid loss of consumers, as the distaste for GE foods is widely known. Consumer presumptions regarding GE foods might be inaccurate and might be harmful for the producer’s business. Nevertheless, in order to respect consumer autonomy, they need to know if the product they are buying is GE, so as to make an informed choice. Thus, the only way the consumer’s autonomy can be respected is by making positive labels mandatory.

The argument for mandatory positive labelling can be stated as follows where the first premise is that consumers want to know if their food products contain GE components to allow them to make genuine informed choices regarding GE Foods. The second premise is to respect consumer autonomy, consumers should be given the information they want. The third premise follows from the previous two and it states that consumers should be given information regarding the presence of GE components in their food products to allow them to make genuine informed choices regarding GE Foods. The fourth premise is that positive labels on GE food provided by the producers will provide information regarding the presence of GE components in food products. From the third and fourth premise it follows that producers should provide consumers with positive labels on GE food to allow them to make genuine informed choices regarding GE Foods. The sixth premise is that positive labels will always allow consumers to make genuine informed choices regarding GE foods if all foods containing GE are labelled. The seventh premise is that all GE containing products will have positive labels only if it becomes mandatory for the producers to put positive labels on food containing GE. Hence, it follows from the fifth, sixth and the seventh premises that it should be mandatory for producers to provide consumers with positive labels on GE food to allow them to make genuine informed choices regarding GE Foods.

This argument is however open to certain objections. The biggest objection that can be foreseen is that solely providing information regarding the presence of GE components is not enough for consumers to make an informed choice. To make an informed choice, the consumers should have information regarding origin of GE material, class of modified contents (DNA, proteins), quantities of the modified content present in the food products. Besides information should be quantifiable, credible and verifiable. Hence, one might say that unless and until the label provides such extensive information, it is futile. One might object that the positive labels that mainly function to indicate the presence of GE food components may be misleading for the consumers. This is because consumers might take it for granted that the products that do not have the label do not contain GE components which might not be the case as certain food products might have an extremely tiny amount of GE components that fits under the threshold to be classified as non-GE food. Additionally, certain products may not contain GE components but still have the label to safeguard the producers from legal struggles. This means that the consumers are not getting sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible and verifiable information which makes them incapable of making an informed choice. Besides, FDA itself has held the view that labelling should only be mandatory when the change in the product for example introduction of a GE crop results into a drastic change in the attributes of the product like the nutritional content and possible health impacts of the food (FDA, 2001; pg. 4). Also, making positive labelling mandatory will cause a lot of financial strain on small farmers and small business as labelling and related procedures are extremely costly and hence, making labelling mandatory will be unfair (McHughen, 2000; 1019). Hence, it should be kept voluntary.

An argument that uses these points to oppose the argument in favour of mandatory positive labelling is as follows. The first premise is that decision regarding a food product constitutes as an “informed choice” if and only if the decision is made based on a GE label that always provides sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible and verifiable information regarding the food product. The second premise is that sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible and verifiable information regarding GE food includes origin of GE material, class of modified contents (DNA, proteins), quantities of the modified content present in the food products. The third premise is that the GE labels do not always provide information like origin of GE material, class of modified contents (DNA, proteins), quantities of the modified content present in the food products. Hence, the fourth premise follows that GE labels do not always provide sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible and verifiable information regarding the food product. Hence, it follows from the first and fourth premises that a decision made regarding a food product that is based on a GE label that does not always provide sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible and verifiable information regarding the food product is not an “informed choice”. The sixth premise is that the purpose of GE label on a food product is to allow people to make an “informed choice” regarding food product. Hence, the GE label on a food product does not fulfill its purpose.

These objections to having mandatory positive labels for GE foods highlight some snags with positive labels, particularly their inability to provide a full picture of GE components in food. However, they fail to successfully oppose that positive labels are needed to respect consumer autonomy. Even though positive labels might not always provide sufficient, necessary, quantifiable, credible, and verifiable information regarding GE components in food, they do provide relevant information. Here, relevant information solely involves information that the product contains GE components or is made from GE components. The reason why this information qualifies as relevant information is because consumers want this information and because consumers believe that they need this information to make an informed choice. Hence, even though the labels might not be ideal in terms of the depth of information they provide, they provide the exact information that the consumer wants. Thus, in terms of respecting consumer autonomy by allowing them to make genuine informed choice based on information relevant to them, these positive labels fulfil their purpose (Streiffer and Rubel, 2004; pg. 223). The counter to the counter argument can thus be framed as follows. The first premise is that relevant information necessary to make an informed choice is information that the consumers feel is sufficient to their decision making. The second premise is that consumers feel that information regarding presence of GE components is sufficient to their decision making. Hence, information regarding the presence of GE components is relevant information necessary to make an informed choice. The fourth premise is that positive labels provide information regarding the presence of GE components. Hence, positive labels provide relevant information necessary to make an informed choice. The sixth premise is that ability to make an informed choice is necessary to maintain consumer autonomy. Therefore, positive labels maintain consumer autonomy. The eighth premise is that the purpose of positive labels on GE food is to maintain consumer autonomy. Hence, it follows that positive labels fulfil their purpose.

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) states that it is mandatory for food products to carry a positive label if they contain GE crops (Tallapragada and Hallman, 2018; 45). Besides, it also made mandatory positive labelling the jurisdiction of the USDA as opposed to the FDA as it was agreed that positive labelling on GE foods is more of a marketing concern than a health concern as it has more to do with consumer autonomy than with the possible health implications of the product containing GE components. The current rules require the producers of food products containing GE products to use packaging to inform the consumers regarding the fact that they have GE. Thus, they have a variety of options – text (e.g. Genetically Engineered, Bioengineered, etc.), symbols, or QR codes. Even though the NBFDS has made labelling mandatory, which safeguards consumer autonomy to certain extent, it has failed to fully ensure consumer autonomy. This is because producers can use QR codes to inform consumers that the product contains GE. This might be an issue as QR codes might not be noticed or scanned easily or people might not take the effort to scan the code. Thus, they might be misled into believing that the product does not contain GE based on the absence of a noticeable mark indicating the presence of GE components. Thus, it is imperative that the rules are amended to make sure that the knowledge that a food item contains GE is conveyed in an extremely straightforward manner, to ensure that consumer autonomy is respected, and consumers are allowed to make a genuine informed choice.

To conclude, mandatory positive labels on GE foods work to respect and maintain consumer autonomy by providing them with the relevant information needed to make an informed choice regarding the consumption of GE Foods. Hence, mandatory positive labels on GE Foods are imperative and the producers must uphold the rules stated in the NBFDS.