Pressure to label food with genetically modified ingredients growing

WASHINGTON – As more states require labeling of foods made with genetically modified ingredients, Congress could be pressured to establish a uniform, nationwide law regulating the controversial technology found in much of the U.S. food supply as early as next year.

The debate over whether to label salad dressings, soups, cereals and other grocery store staples made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, gained momentum in May after Vermont became the first state to require labeling of foods made from those ingredients. The measure, which is being challenged in court by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other groups, is set to take effect July 1, 2016.

POLL: Do you think food labels should be required to list genetically modified ingredients?

In the United States, up to 80 percent of packaged foods contain ingredients that have been genetically modified, according to the GMA, which represents more than 300 food and beverage companies, including Kellogg, PepsiCo and H.J. Heinz.

The labeling argument has pitted consumer groups against major food and agribusiness companies who agree that labeling of genetically engineered foods should take place, but the two sides have failed to reach a consensus on how to get there and whether it should be mandatory or voluntary. The food industry has said a state-by-state framework leads them to face higher costs that get passed on to shoppers, while opponents of the ingredients contend state laws are needed to address growing consumer demand about what is in their food until the federal government acts.

State-by-state results mixed

State efforts have had mixed results. Voters in California and Washington state narrowly failed to approve similar initiatives. Connecticut and Maine both passed laws to require labeling, but they go into effect only if nearby states act. Oregon voters will decide on a labeling initiative in November, and more than two dozen other states — including Colorado, New York and Massachusetts — are considering mandatory labeling. In South Dakota, state lawmakers and other labeling backers have shown no sign of moving forward with their own bill despite pressure from pro-labeling advocates.

Congress has taken a largely hands-off approach about whether large food companies should be required to notify consumers about these ingredients. Unless further pressure builds on the state level through the passage of new labeling laws, Washington lawmakers probably will seek to distance themselves from the labeling debate. The earliest Congress could act is 2015, food groups and labeling proponents say.

"As states come out with their own different regulations, it makes (the marketplace) more and more complicated, and we may see more people from across the country asking for us to take some action. Maybe that's what the standstill is right now," said Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., a member of the House Agriculture Committee. "There's not a real desire for Congress to step in and deal with this issue until the people across the states tell us it's necessary."

Pro-labeling advocates say most Americans support labeling and they contend momentum is building for Congress to act. They say U.S. shoppers should be given the same opportunity that consumers in more than 60 countries have to know if the foods they buy contain those ingredients. They also have expressed uncertainty about the safety of genetically modified ingredients, even though the Food and Drug Administration has said there is no difference between genetically modified crops and their traditional counterparts.

Nationwide label debate

In Washington, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Peter DeFazio D-Ore., have proposed a nationwide label on genetically modified foods. Food and agribusiness companies,including Monsanto and DuPont, have thrown their weight behind a bill from Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., that would ban mandatory GMO food labeling by states and let food companies decide if they want to label their packages as genetically modified. Those bills have languished in Congress.

"We're in the midst of an area of food democracy, the likes of which we've never seen. People want to know everything about their food, what's in it, who made it, where it's from, how it's made," said Scott Faber, a vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. "The politicians who are trying to deny people the right to know about their food are running headlong into this sort of a brick wall of opposition."

Cathleen Enright, an executive vice president of food and agriculture with the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said a federal solution is needed to prevent an uneven patchwork of labeling requirements that vary from state to state, increasing costs for food manufacturers that are passed on to shoppers. She noted that forcing labels to be placed on food products implies that they are less safe.

"It's interesting how motivations align because the proponents of mandatory labeling at the state level all along have been clear that their goal was to create this mosaic of bills and essentially chaos in interstate commerce to press the federal government to act," Enright said. "We support the need for the federal government to act. It all comes down to the federal level."

Some firms avoid GMOs

In the meantime, some U.S. food companies are avoiding genetically modified ingredients in their products, and they are letting consumers know.

Whole Foods will require labeling of all products sold in its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018 to indicate if they contain genetically modified ingredients. General Mills said in January it would stop using bioengineered corn starch and sugar cane for its original Cheerios and put on the boxes "Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients." And ice cream icon Ben & Jerry's is in the process of shifting to nongenetically modified ingredients in all of its 50 flavors.

Greg Jaffe, director of the Project on Biotechnology for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said there is a growing need to share more about genetically modified crops. But he said the players involved are divided over whether food manufacturers and retailers, the states or the federal government should be responsible for getting that information to consumers, and how.

"I don't see this issue going away anytime soon," Jaffe said. "There needs to be some additional transparency and access to information (for the consumer), but what form that comes in is very much open."