Rep. Dennis Canario, D-Portsmouth, Little Compton, Tiverton, has introduced a bill that would require food containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering,” according to a General Assembly press release. The bill was heard Wednesday by the House Committee on Health, Education and Welfare.
Genetically modified ingredients can be found in approximately 70 percent of food products sold in supermarkets nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria,” according to the press release.
Connecticut and Maine are the only states to have passed similar legislation, though these bills contain provisions that prevent them from taking effect until neighboring states also adopt labeling laws, according to a press release from the Center for Food Safety.
Thirty other states are also currently debating labeling legislation, Canario said.
“This is a right-to-know issue,” Canario said. “Most people don’t know about genetically modified organisms, and if the package is clearly marked that it contains GMOs, people can make decisions on whether or not to consume it.”
Companies should be required to post labels with information about GMOs, just as they have been required to label foods’ nutritional facts, said Gretchen Gerlach ’14, an environmental studies concentrator. “When they first started labeling food as organic, a lot of people didn’t know what it meant, but as it was in the media, people definitely learned about it,” Gerlach said.
The bill’s opponents have expressed concern that labeling costs could raise prices for consumers. The extra labeling on GMO products could “cost families $450 a year,” said Mandy Hagan, vice president of state affairs and grassroots for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Companies would have to spend money to “go through additional verification” from a third party in order to confirm that their products do not include genetically modified ingredients, Hagan said.
The bill’s advocates often express skepticism that labelling costs are at the heart of the food industry’s opposition, painting their detractors as intent on keeping consumers in the dark about the use of a new and supposedly untested practice. “We believe that many companies would rather remove GMOs than admit they use them,” said Jeffrey Smith, founding executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology.
Substituting genetically modified ingredients would drive prices up due to the expense of alternative ingredients, as well as the research that would have to go into developing alternative agricultural techniques, Hagan said. “For some ingredients there are so little non-GM products available that it would be difficult to not use them.”
“The labeling provides the easiest means for the industry to participate and the consumers to receive information,” Smith said.
Many consumers are concerned about GMOs’ possible long-term health effects, Smith said. “We believe GMOs are a major contributor to a variety of diseases in the United States,” he said. “If it turns out GMOs are in fact contributing to these problems and they are being fed to the entire population, it becomes a very serious issue indeed. There is evidence to make it a top priority investigation.”
But many scientists say the debate over the health effects of GMOs has been settled. “The FDA and National Academy of Sciences have found GMOs to be safe,” Hagan said. “Independent studies have not been able to find any negative effects.”
“Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants,” according an informational posting from the Food and Drug Administration. Developers of GE plants are required to submit a safety assessment to the FDA and are encouraged to voluntarily consult with the FDA before marketing their new product.
“Most people are worried about human health and with GMOs, that might be the last thing you should be worried about,” said Dawn King, visiting assistant professor of environmental studies. “There’s a huge scare that there will be a loss of biodiversity in crops.”
“It’s much more than a human health issue. This is really a right-to-know legislation and honestly, I do believe there could be good and bad things from GMOs,” King said.
Currently, 64 other countries have either placed bans on GMOs or have adopted similar labeling laws, Smith said.
“I absolutely want labeling because I want the right to choose,” King said. “That’s about as American as you can get.”
ADVERTISEMENT
