Click here to preview the new Fast Company

Want to try out the new

If you’d like to return to the previous design, click the yellow button on the lower left corner.



Is It A Good Idea To Label Genetically Modified Foods?

A new bill in California would force food producers to disclose if any genetically engineered ingredients were in what you eat. Is the law common sense or simply trying to hold back the future of food?

In 1983, scientists created the first genetically modified plant. Fast forward a mere 29 years later and approximately 80% of all packaged food in the U.S. contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. But there’s no way for you to tell—producers aren’t required to use any labeling that indicates the use of GE crops.

That may soon change in California, where Proposition 37 (AKA the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) will be placed on voter ballots in the upcoming November election. If passed, the proposition will require most foods containing GE ingredients (with the exception of alcoholic beverages, dairy, meat, and poultry) to come with special labeling.

This attempt at transparency has riled up pesticide and biotechnology industries, which have—along with other groups that oppose the law—created a website entitled Stop the Costly Food Labeling Proposition to convince voters that it’s a bad idea to have products containing GE crops labeled as such. We decided to delve into some of their claims.

The law would hurt California family farmers, food companies and grocers.

The site claims that the law will require these groups to keep records on every product they sell, tracking whether they contain GE ingredients and force them to place "scary-sounding labels" on their products, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. They would also have to spend cash to ensure that that they keep entirely separate facilities for GE and non-GE crops.

That’s not really the problem, says Paul Towers, the Organizing & Media Director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). " he number of GE crops grown in California are relatively minimal. The greater issue at stake is the proximity of GE crops to specialty crops in the state."

Towers says that almonds—a multibillion dollar a year industry in the state—are at risk of pesticide contamination from cotton and corn, the two main herbicide-tolerant crops on the market. "We’re putting that industry and those farmers at greater risk of harm," he says.

The legislation would increase food prices for Californians because of the complexity of complying with the proposition.

"The initiative really just requires adding a little bit of extra ink to existing labels," says Towers. And in any case, he says, companies have 18 months to comply if the initiative is passed.

On the flip side, says Kathy Fairbanks of Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks (the firm that represents the campaign against Prop. 37), this proposition will affect costs on every step of the supply chain. "I’ve heard the proponents say many times that this is a simple measure, that it’s basically putting a simple label on your box of granola bars, but it’s not," she says. "If they decide to add labels, that carries a cost, and if they decide they need to change out ingredients, that’s a massive, massive cost."

The law makes no sense since it exempts certain foods (when they are sold "for immediate consumption" in restaurants, as well as dairy, meat, poultry, and alcohol).

It’s difficult to regulate and monitor animals that are eating GE crops, according to PANNA. "Some of the exemptions that exist are meant to create efficiency in terms of adoption," says Towers. "This is meant to be the most efficient means of adopting GMO labeling."

Fairbanks says that’s a bogus argument. "If [the proposition] is going to require food companies to buy organic corn or conventional [non-GE] corn to put in their products, ranchers could just as easily buy organic corn or conventional corn."

The law would create a new category of lawsuits, letting anyone sue food companies, grocer and farmer who they believe have violated the labeling rules, even without proof of damages.

According to Fairbanks, the "bounty hunter" lawsuits allowed under the law don’t require that attorneys show proof of violation or damage resulting from someone eating GMO products. She explains: "They will look for products that don’t have a label but that contain corn or soy that could be made with GE ingredient and they’ll allege that this is mislabeled because this could contain GE and you didn’t label it"—even if the products don’t, in fact,contain GE ingredients.

The pro-Prop.27 website contends: "Whipping up fears about trial lawyers is a key strategy of the opposition. Their website claims the initiative will authorize 'bounty hunter lawsuits.' This claim is false and makes no sense. The California Right to Know initiative does not allow bounty hunter fees, so there is no economic incentive for lawyers to sue."

The law is extreme, since most packaged food and beverage products contain GE ingredients. No similar law exists in any other state.

The safety of GE food products is still up in the air (see our recent piece on genetic engineers explaining the dangers of GE food) and this anonymous letter from 26 scientists to the EPA complaining about our lack of knowledge on the subject. There are arguments to be made for both sides.

It is true that no similar law exists in any other state. That’s not for lack of trying. "If you look at Vermont and Connecticut, they were set to pass laws doing similar things. Both states pulled back because of fear of legal reprisal and legal bills [from the biotech industry]," explains Towers. "California is one of the few places where this has been taken directly to voters."

Other countries have GE labeling requirements, but only require labeling for products that contain small percentages of GE ingredients ( .9% to 5%). California will have an extreme threshold of .5% in 2014 and 0.0% detectable levels in 2019.

Even the organic industry doesn’t have rules this strict: "To be certified organic does not require having a zero tolerance for GE ingredients," says Fairbanks. "The organic industry lobbied to allow a certain percentage of GE ingredients because they realize that the threshold is pretty much impossible to meet."

Still, she says, the law wouldn’t make sense even with a higher threshold because of its other problems. And yet, since so many other countries already have labeling rules, it’s possible that Prop. 37 could actually help California farmers in the export market.

It’s hard to say whether the proposition will pass (though it wouldn’t be surprising if it did). But we do know one thing: the majority of Americans want GMO products labeled. A recent poll from the Mellman Group found that than 9 in 10 voters are in favor of the FDA requiring that "foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that." And a recent Zogby International Poll found that 87% of respondents were in favor of labeling. That may be a hint of what’s to come.

Add New Comment


  • Stephen

    I support the legislation.    This will eventually lead to less sales of food with GMO ingredients and it will eventually lead food makers to consider non-GMO ingredients so they don't have to label them.  Think back to when trans fat labeling became mandatory.   This made an incentive to phase out trans fat nationwide.   As non-GMO becomes desired in larger quantities, this will reduce the cost of non-GMO ingredients in large quantities.     

  • Deborah Lynne Downs

    Don't you see?...How can this information be any more trustworthy than those industries who defend GMOs when the only evidence offered is the opinion of someone who obviously opposes GMOs outright...One more all or nothing detractor...And an anonymous letter...come on... or all or nothing folks, even 100 years of definitive evidence of safety and benefits would not be enough...As for research, too many researchers on any side of an issue don't approach a question looking for answers. They approach it hoping to prove what they already believe..They begin with a bias...and more and more such bias is based on something like "pink slime" rhetoric that springs from some individual personal preference...I'm not saying that everyone involved is lying...but what do you call half truths and omissions...The Amercian people are screwed...

  • guest

    "Even the organic industry doesn’t have rules this strict: "To be certified organic does not require having a zero tolerance for GE ingredients," says Fairbanks. "The organic industry lobbied to allow a certain percentage of GE ingredients because they realize that the threshold is pretty much impossible to meet."

    This quote from Fairbanks is very misleading considering that the organic industry review board that creates the list for ingredients as acceptable and still be considered "organic" were made by large conglomerates that happen to own 'organic' labels. These corporations effectively vote in the chemicals and GE ingredients they use in their processed products to be "accepted" in the organic food ingredient listings. It's a sham.

    If the processed food industry and corporate bullies like ADM and Monsanto aren't concerned about the safety of their products then why fight the label? Maybe because if people were aware of what they eat, we'd see a greater demand for non-GM foods, meat, fish and crops.

  • ah123abc

    Monsanto and other Agri-biotech companies want to talk out of both sides of their mouths. When the battle was at the EU, which has much stricter laws keeping GM foods out of its borders, Monsanto argued European consumers should have a choice. They got the U.S. govt to take the case to the WTO. When the EU said fine, but you must label all GM products as such, Monsanto then cried fowl. So much for the choice argument. Let California consumers choose!

  • MsMag

    The only ones it will affect will be the bottom line of the Monsatan and the other biotec and chemical corporations.  GOOD!!!  Nothing but a bunch of lies!  They are the ones that have driven up the cost of (good) food, as it has only served to increase their bottom line while poisoning us.  This poison is labeled in 50 other countries; it is not a problem to label it in this country, except they want to continue to use us as their guinea pigs.

  • Anthony Brown

    I support GMO labeling because 40% of people across the globe are having right to know about ingredients using for food items. Recently, I came to know a lot of info about GMO farming and how it become threat to farmers and natural environment -

  • Colorado1235

    Yes, label all food. We want to know what we eat, and if farmers and companies such as Mansanto can't tell us, it's even more a reason to have such a requirement. We are what we eat.