Americans all have different relationships to food. I didn’t know that you could buy applesauce in a jar until I went to college. I was aware that you could get soup in a can but I had never experienced it personally. My mother and grandmother made these things from scratch. So there were no food labels indicating the nutritional value on any of these items, but following Michael Pollan’s advice to not eat anything that my grandmother would not have recognized as food, the nutritional value wasn’t something we worried about calculating with numbers. It just felt wholesome.

However, not everyone has the luxury of making food from scratch. Americans increasingly rely on processed foods to replace or supplement home-cooked meals. These foods are convenient and often a cheaper alternative. In some cases, they are the only option, since many Americans live in “food deserts.” A food desert is a location where grocery stores that carry fresh produce are more than a mile away and residents don’t have access to them via a car or public transportation. Neighborhoods like this tend to have grocery stores that only have processed food options. A lot of food deserts are in urban areas, but there are also some in rural communities as well, because if the nearest store where you can buy a tomato is five miles away and you lose or don’t have access to your car, you have a very long walk to purchase a tomato.

You can actually go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and take a look at food deserts around the country.

Since Americans are either being forced–through economic necessity or location–or choose to consume more processed foods, efforts have been made to make the labeling on these foods easier for consumers to understand. The strategy adopted by the White House, as part of Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat obesity, has been to modify our existing food labeling. But there may be other ways to label our food that better informs consumers and encourage them to make different choices.

Facts Up Front Food Labels

Our current food labeling method is called the “facts up front” system, which utilizes a black-and-white label on the back of the product, with some key facts also displayed on the front of the product. In the following video, Allison Aubrey of NPR explains some of the changes that were made to the facts up front system that will hopefully make it more user-friendly for consumers.

The two main changes to the labeling system, which are designed to promote healthier choices, are the modifications in serving size and the “added sugar” reference on the label. With the previous labeling system, it was not always clear to consumers that what they consider a “serving” and what a “serving” actually is for the purposes of calculating the calories are rarely the same thing. For example, a 24-ounce bottle of coke, which many adults would drink with their meal and think of as a “serving” because it was in one unit, might actually be 2.5 servings. So the number of calories listed was not the number calories in the bottle, which would be much higher than what people were actually consuming.

The other major modification designed to assist consumers is the “added sugar” valuation. Most people don’t realize that sugar is put into nearly all processed foods, even ones that aren’t sweet. Salad dressing, for example, often has sugar added to it. The added sugar value is designed to alert consumers to the hidden sugars in their foods, which are a huge driver for obesity and other health risks.

These changes to the food labels may, in fact, help consumers make better choices. A majority of Americans do look at food labels when they are deciding whether to purchase a food item, so making sure that they are better able to understand the number of calories and nutritional value of the food they are about to consume may help them avoid (at least most of the time) foods that are unwise to eat. If sales for a particular food decline because consumers are changing their behavior, that may even encourage manufacturers to alter the amount of sugar and fat they use to attract more health-conscious consumers.

But there is another way that we can label our food that might be even more beneficial to the consumer.

Traffic Light Labeling

This video explains some of the studies conducted that compare the facts up front food labeling system with an alternative option known as the “traffic light” system. As the name suggests, the traffic light labeling system uses red, green, and yellow/orange to indicate that a nutrient level is healthy or unhealthy. For example, a food that has low fat and low fiber would have a green circle that says low fat (which is a good thing) and a red circle that says low fiber (which would be bad). Glancing at it quickly, if you saw a string of red circles on the label you would know that this food should be eaten in moderation or avoided completely. In contrast, a food with a lot of green circles is something that you can eat more frequently.

Here is the good news: both kinds of food labels will be helpful if you are trying to decide between two different kinds of products. If your choice is between a bag of Fritos and a bag of sourdough pretzels then either the facts up front type of labeling or the traffic light labeling is going to help you know which choice is healthier. However, when you are looking at a product by itself and trying to decide if it is a good choice the traffic light system is much better at helping you make an informed decision.

The traffic light system may be of more use to people as they actually shop than facts up front food labels. It depends on how people make their purchasing decisions. If consumers are going to the store and holding two types of bread in front of them to try to figure out which one is healthier, then the facts up front label is just fine. But if they are reaching for a salad dressing on its own, not comparison shopping, a facts up front label may not alert them to the fact that it is a bad choice, whereas a traffic light label with a red warning circle that says “high sugar” may be more effective at steering consumers away from that product. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a prevalence of red labels will lead to a reduction in purchases, which is why food manufacturers in Europe are resistant to the implementation of the traffic light label system. Its use in the U.K. is voluntary for manufacturers.

The facts up front system actually leads consumers to make the wrong estimates. It encourages people to think there are more good nutrients in a product than there actually are and fewer bad nutrients. Overall, the traffic light label was easier for consumers to understand, since it can be confusing to think about the recommended daily value of a nutrient and to make the necessary calculation. But a red warning on a package is immediately perceived as “don’t eat this!”

It’s unclear how the traffic light system might affect consumers and manufacturers but the system has been used in the U.K. to try to combat label confusion. Ideally, any labeling system that we use should tell consumers as clearly as possible which products are healthy and/or exactly how unhealthy for you a particular junk food is. And hopefully, that would reduce the amount of particularly unhealthy junk food people consume. But a good labeling system will also influence manufacturer behavior and the traffic light system may be even better at that than a facts up front label. Manufacturers may not want to put a series of red circles on their products, increasing the perception that they are unhealthy, so they might modify their product to get the label reduced from red to yellow.

Conclusion

In a perfect environment, the food labeling system could be complicated and consumers would have the time needed to analyze each product for its relative health merits. As a result, they would wisely avoid the foods they should. But we do not live in the perfect environment. Food shopping is something that many consumers engage in almost as muscle memory, relying heavily on brand loyalty and a general feeling that a product is wholesome. Even when consumers look at food labels, which most of them do, they may not understand them. They know that a bag of potato chips is bad, especially when comparing it to a rice cake, but they may not understand just how bad.

A traffic light labeling system should be explored to figure out if it does a better job accomplishing the goals of a labeling system, which are to inform consumers, modify their behavior where possible, and encourage manufacturers to make their products healthier in an attempt to capture market share. We put warning labels on dangerous products like cigarettes, but our food labeling system does not treat sugar with the same level of danger. Given the health crisis that overconsumption of these products has helped to create, perhaps we should.

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Food Labels: Is the ‘Facts up Front’ System Good for Consumers? appeared first on Law Street.

Our adventures in genetics began with a monk named Gregor Mendel.  Mendel systematically bred pea plants to demonstrate the concepts behind genetic transmission before “gene” was even a word. He brandished a paint brush to cross breed plants that exhibited inheritance of exciting traits like wrinkly peas and inflated pods. Mendel was confined to pea plants in his search for potential traits. Today, we aren’t bound to the same species in our search for traits. We can bend the rules of nature as we know them using recombinant DNA technology. Welcome to the world of genetically modified organisms.

OMG…what are GMOs, anyway?

GMO is more than just a backwards OMG. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Other terms used to describe them include bioengineered, transgenic, genetically engineered (GE), or just genetically modified (GM). All of these terms describe an organism created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes that yield desirable traits from one organism to another. Technology has granted us power to cross species barriers, so unlike Mendel, we don’t have to choose traits from just one species.

How are traits transferred?

Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA technology to splice a piece of DNA from one species and insert it into the DNA of another species. Scientists identify the piece of DNA responsible for the desired trait, clone it, modify it to make it more compatible with the destination organism, and then insert it into the new organism. The modification occurs on a cellular level and the borrowed gene transforms to fit the destination organism’s DNA. Other methods involve repressing a gene that causes a certain characteristic, like they did to make a tomato that ripened after harvesting.

The Great Health Debate

Genetic engineering enables us to create crops with ideal characteristics, taking yields far beyond the possibilities of even the most resourceful farmers. Everyone must be thrilled! Not so much. In fact, many people are concerned about what GMOs might be doing to our health. Even with hazy understanding of GMOs, worries run rampant.

Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel to delve deep into society’s perceptions of hot-button issues.

What’s behind all of these worries?

No studies have proven that GMOs pose a significant health threat. There were some false alarms, but the studies were flagged for faulty mechanisms. In the absence of clear-cut science, why are people still worried about GMOs and their health?

Most people fear that a reason to be concerned just hasn’t been found yet, not that it doesn’t exist. Common misgivings are that gene transfer might also transfer antibiotic resistance and allergens, and that GMOs might not be as nutritious as their natural counterparts. While many of these apprehensions remain unsubstantiated, they’re still putting GMOs under scrutiny.

Are we right to worry about GMOs and our health? It turns out we may not know enough. Experts agree that the completed studies fall short in meriting total confidence. GMO testing has no minimal length requirement, even for crops cultivated on a large scale. Many point to a need for more long-term, quality, and transparent studies done on possible health effects of GMOs.

This article from University of California San Francisco quotes Patrice Sutton, a public health expert, to summarize concerns regarding GMOs and public health:

“Many people could rightly look at the existing science and see that it’s extremely weak,” Sutton said. “However, weak science does not prove safety; it just demonstrates that the public health impacts of GMOs are uncertain. It’s an overall public health principle that in the face of scientific uncertainty to expose everybody to something is a legitimate concern that should give us pause.”

Some contend that labeling food containing GMOs could fill in information gaps. After all, 97 percent of edible GMOs are cultivated in the United States and South America where no labeling requirement exists. Without labeling, long term studies and traceability are impossible. Which leads to our next point…

Should we label GMOs?

The FDA says “no” and hasn’t changed its mind since 1992. It adheres to substantial equivalence, the concept that a GMO doesn’t merit concern if it’s substantially equivalent to an existing food. This view was challenged in the court case, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The court sided with the FDA, deferring to  its technological expertise in this complicated matter.

These decisions did little to quell budding concerns from the public. Today, 93 percent of Americans desire GMO labels on food, according to an ABC News poll.

The “Yes” People

The “yes” people rally behind the “right to know” battlecry, using it as the basis for GMO labeling initiatives. They believe consumers have a right to know what their products contain and make informed decisions for themselves.

At present, GMO ingredients in food are credence qualities — those that a consumer cannot evaluate let alone leverage in their purchase decisions. Labeling proponents say consumers can’t make informed decisions at the point of purchase without labels.

Doctors have also chimed in on the “right to know,” asserting that GMO labeling could affect how they study and treat their patients. It could be challenging to detect potential health impacts, including food allergies, if consumers don’t know what they’re eating.

Of course the worries mentioned above — allergies, antibiotic resistance, and nutrition — also factor into the “yes” arguments. Without labeling, it will be taxing to discern if these worries ever manifest as realistic concerns.

The “No” People

The “no” people suppose that a consumer’s “right to know” could lead to a consumer’s “right to be confused.” They think labels might give people a false reason to worry since no evidence suggests GMOs are harmful to health. A label doesn’t guarantee an informed consumer, especially when people are already confused. Furthermore, some argue that a GMO label only treats a symptom of consumers’ grander problem with industrial farming techniques.

And there’s more where that came from. The “no” people have a whole laundry list of concerns surrounding GMO labeling. Here’s a preview:

• A GMO label may inspire worry, leading to decreased demand and therefore production. Poor market acceptance could prematurely cripple a promising technology.
• A GMO labeling requirement could cause costs to skyrocket — some estimate by 10 percent of an annual grocery bill.
• A GMO label isn’t necessary. Concerned consumers can just buy certified organic foods that prohibit the use of GMOs.
• The food system infrastructure in the United States would need to be overhauled if a GMO label is required. Producers would need to implement extensive tracking and reporting systems to accommodate the new requirement, possibly with unforeseen costs and consequences.

So that covers “yes” and “no,” but the question of GMO labeling is far too complex for  monosyllabic responses. The decision packs a load of potential economic, legal, and societal implications.

From lawyers to farmers, this NPR spot explores why voters in Colorado and Oregon are answering “yes” or “no” to the deceptively simple question of GMO labeling that they’re facing on upcoming ballots:

There you have the gist of both sides. Now, what decisions have actually been made concerning GMO labeling?

Decisions…decisions…

States are buzzing with proposals to require GMO labeling. The Center for Food Safety keeps track of the status of proposed bills on this page if you’re curious. So far, GMO labeling bills have been rejected in California and Washington. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws, but they lack potency until neighboring states also pass labeling laws. Vermont stands alone as the only state to pass a GMO labeling law, no neighbors required. The labels will start popping up in 2016. Or maybe not. Food manufacturing heavyweights have filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The groups purport that Vermont exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing costs and undermining the authority of federal agencies like the FDA. The results of the lawsuit will determine the temperature of GMO labeling measures in other states. Oregon is up to bat next as it makes a statewide ballot decision about GMO labeling on November 4, 2014.

Umm…what about the rest of the United States?

If you’re thinking state-by-state labeling laws could get complicated, you’re not alone. Two bills from the 113th Congress address GMO labeling on a nationwide scale. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in April 2014. The bill would require producers to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use of a bioengineered organism intended for consumption. It would then be up to the Secretary to determine if a label should be required based on whether or not there is a material difference between the bioengineered product and the traditional food. The bill would nullify any previous state laws passed requiring mandatory labeling. Some critics have called the bill the DARK or Deny Americans the Right to Know  act because many GMOs would likely escape labeling.
2. Conversely the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would require any food with one or more genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such or be deemed misbranded.

Some companies have decided to take GMO matters into their own hands. After all, the customer is always right!

GMO Labeling Trailblazers

Private companies don’t have to wait for a state or federal government to make company-wide GMO decisions. According to the NPD Group, 11 percent of primary shoppers would pay more for non-GMO products. Some companies commit to serving this hyper-concerned segment.

• General Mills announced its original Cheerios are GMO free.
• Whole Foods plans to move to full GMO transparency by 2018.
• Ben and Jerry’s fully supports mandatory GMO labeling and wants to remove GMOs from its products. The company believes happy ingredients = happy ice cream.

Will labels determine the fate of GMO ingredients?

Consumer concerns will remain regardless of decisions on GMO labeling. With most American consumers saying they deserve the right to know, the search for information will continue whether it’s slapped on the front of a package or not.

But GMO labeling decisions and subsequent market reactions could determine if GMO technology skyrockets or stalls.

Conclusion

What will GMOs mean to future generations? A Pandora’s Box of unnatural selection? A budding innovation that ends world hunger? Right now, we really don’t know. In this circumstance, not knowing simply means we have many more exciting things to learn in the years to come.

Resources

Choices: Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All the Controversy?

UC San Francisco: Genetically Modified Food Labeling Through the Lens of Public Health

National Geographic: The GMO Labeling Battle is Heating Up–Here’s Why

International Journal of Biological Sciences: Debate on GMOs Health Risks After Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

WebTV: Food Fight: The Debate Over GMOs in Colorado

Slate: The Price of Your Right to Know

World Health Organization: Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Denver Post: GMO Labeling Measure in Colorado Triggers Heated Debate

NPR: Voters Will Get Their Say On GMO Labeling In Colorado And Oregon

AgBioForum: Labeling Policy For GMOs: To Each His Own?

Colorado State University: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Center for Food Safety: Ben & Jerry’s, GE-Labeling Advocates Protest Anti-GE Labeling Bill

Politico: GMO Labeling Bill Would Trump States

Politico: Food Industry to Fire Preemptive GMO Strike

Los Angeles Times: General Mills Drops GMOs from Cheerios

Institute of Food Technologists: Most Consumers Won’t Pay More For Non-GMO Food

National Academies Press: Genetically Modified Organisms: An Ancient Practice on the Cusp

Science Meets Food: What You Need to Know About GMOs, GM Crops, and the Techniques of Modern Biotechnology

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yes or No? GMO Labeling Is Not That Simple appeared first on Law Street.