Recently, a pair of activists argued on this site that Oregonians “won’t be misled” by special mandatory labels on genetically improved foods (GIFs). That’s not accurate: Oregonians will merely know which foods are made with genetically engineered ingredients, also called GMOs, and which ones aren’t.
How meaningful is that distinction? It might surprise readers to learn that a comprehensive scientific consensus holds that the answer is, “Not much, if at all.”
Numerous scientific consensus bodies, including the World Health Organization, the Royal Society of London, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association, all affirm that GIFs are just as safe as conventionally produced foods.
Normally, the government only mandates labeling if it relates to health or safety. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires calorie and serving size information on nutrition panels because it feels that consumers can use this information to make healthier dietary decisions. But the FDA, as part of the scientific consensus, does not believe that there is a health or safety distinction between GIFs and their conventional counterparts — if there were, current FDA rules would require disclosure.
Advocates claim there is a “right to know” what’s in our food. This sounds like a compelling argument at first. But broadening a supposed “right to know” to things not related to health and safety, like genetically improved ingredients, creates a floodgate of potentially mandatory — and irrelevant — disclosures. …
Will Coggin is a senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom.
