Food Safety
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Food Safety
  • NEWS
    • Latest News
    • White Papers
  • PRODUCTS
  • TOPICS
    • Contamination Control
    • Food Types
    • Management
    • Process Control
    • Regulatory
    • Sanitation
    • Supply Chain
    • Testing and Analysis
  • PODCAST
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Food Safety Five Newsreel
    • eBooks
    • FSM Distinguished Service Award
    • Interactive Product Spotlights
    • Videos
  • BUYER'S GUIDE
  • MORE
    • ENEWSLETTER >
      • Archive Issues
      • Subscribe to eNews
    • Store
    • Sponsor Insights
  • WEBINARS
  • FOOD SAFETY SUMMIT
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • Archive Issues
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Contact
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
Process ControlRegulatoryPackagingGuidelines

Health and Safety Arguments over GMO Labeling

February 3, 2015

The ongoing debate over labeling foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has only intensified over the past year. A central contention is the degree to which either side trusts, or doesn’t trust, pronouncements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies that food resulting from genetic engineering is safe and no different than food from traditionally bred plants. The mistrust of GMO labeling proponents is primarily based on the view that government agencies are unduly influenced by biotech companies like Monsanto that profit from GMOs and that questions about GMO safety still persist.

This mistrust might be shared by the public. A recent ABC News poll found that approximately 93 percent of the public believe the federal government should require labels on food stating whether it has been genetically modified or “bio-engineered.”[1] Significantly, the same poll found that 52 percent believe that foods made with GMOs are unsafe with an additional 13 percent unsure about the safety of such foods. Clearly, the perception of safety plays a large role in the movement to label GMO foods.

The debate over GMO labeling, and by extension the safety of GMO foods, is presently being fought in federal court. Several food industry trade groups, including the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), filed suit in June 2014 to prevent Vermont’s GMO labeling law from going into effect in June 2016. That law is the first successful effort at the state level to implement GMO labeling after failed ballot initiatives in California and Washington. Notably, attorneys representing Vermont have expressly argued that the law was “expressly prompted by health and safety concerns.”

The result of this lawsuit, expected later this year, will play a pivotal role in whether other states move forward with similar laws and whether the debate over health and safety risks shifts towards one side or the other. Pleadings and briefs filed by the parties in that case provide insights into the arguments on both sides of the labeling issue.

Food Industry Trade Groups: The “Debate” Over GMO Health and Safety Debate is Over
Attorneys representing GMA and other industry trade groups argue that GMOs provide an array of benefits and that the “vast majority of foods sold in grocery stores in the United States today contain some amount of at least one ingredient that is connected to a [genetically-engineered] plant.” Highlighting the prevalence of GMOs is, of course, an implicit argument that their widespread consumption is an indication of safety. In this context, the following specific points are set forth to bolster the claim that foods made from GMOs do not pose any health or safety risks as compared to foods made from traditionally bred plants.

First, the federal agencies responsible for food labeling, FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have rejected calls for GMO labeling. In this regard, they note an FDA policy statement from 1992 and draft guidance for labeling in 2001 in which the agency stated that it found no evidence that foods developed by genetic engineering present any different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. They then highlight more recent testimony by FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg before Congress in March 2014, in which she said that “credible scientific organizations” have “looked hard at this issue over a long period of time,” and the agency “ha[s] not seen evidence” of health risks. The trade associations also quote Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack who said that when the federal government “require[s] a label on something, we’re either warning there’s a potential safety problem or we’re giving nutritional information.” Accordingly, Vilsack stated, labeling GMO foods “doesn’t fit” precisely because “[t]here’s not a safety issue, and [genetic engineering] doesn’t affect nutrition—it’s about the process through which food is created.”

Second, they cite findings by organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and American Medical Association that, respectively, no evidence supports singling out GMOs for safety assessments and that “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class.” They contend that the safety of GMOs has also been affirmed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the European Commission.

In addition, the testimony of Dr. Alan McHughen, a molecular geneticist, is provided that sets forth additional facts regarding McHughen’s view that a “scientific consensus” on the safety of GMO-derived foods. Finally, the trade groups state that studies published by proponents of labeling that imply health risks with GMOs have been shown as “either unreliable, irrelevant or both” by regulators and “other scientific experts.”

In light of the foregoing, the trade groups contend that the debate regarding GMO products is over and, accordingly, Vermont had “no basis whatsoever” to be concerned about health and safety issues when it enacted the labeling law.

The State of Vermont: The State Legislature Had Grounds for Concern Regarding the Health and Safety of GMOs
In response, attorneys representing the State of Vermont contend that the first of four purposes behind the labeling law is to enable persons to “make informed decisions regarding the potential health effects of the food they purchase and consume,” and, if they choose, to “avoid potential health risks of food produced from genetic engineering.” In this regard, the attorneys cite the following legislative findings:

• There are “conflicting studies assessing the health consequences of food produced from genetic engineering;”

• Genetic engineering of plants and animals may cause unintended consequences;

• “FDA relies entirely on safety studies submitted by manufacturers…while independent scientists may be limited in their ability to assess genetically engineered (GE) foods because of industry or patent restrictions on research;” and

• “[N]o long-term or epidemiologic studies have been conducted in the United States examining the safety of human consumption of GE foods.”

In light of this “scientific uncertainty,” the attorneys argue, the only certainty is that lack of GMO labeling means that “consumers with health, environmental, and religious concerns related to GE foods are left in the dark about whether the food they purchase was in fact produced with genetic engineering.”

Significantly, they also put forth written testimony from Michael Antoniou, coauthor of a book entitled, GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops and foods. That study was relied upon by the Vermont legislature and is the same and only study that The Non-GMO Project—a leading organization against GMOs—lists on its website under the heading “GMO Science.” The most significant claim in that lengthy study is the charge that “[s]tudies show that GM foods can be toxic, allergenic, or have unintended nutritional changes.”

In his testimony, however, Antoniou primarily disputes the claim that there is a consensus on the safety of GMO-derived food and cites statements from scientific and professional organizations supporting the call for GMO labeling or that suggest that more research, especially over the long term, is needed to fully evaluate GMO health and safety risks. Accordingly, he contends that “there is a good-faith scientific disagreement on the issue.” Because the burden is on the food industry trade groups to show that the Vermont legislature did not have solid grounds for its concerns over safety, Antoniou does not need to go any further.

Conclusion
The debate over the safety of food derived from GMO ingredients will not end when the court rules on Vermont’s GMO labeling law. Rather, the judge will likely determine only whether the Vermont legislature had a reasonable basis for determining that potential health risk exists with GMO-derived foods. That ruling, however, will be strong fodder for the winning side in future battles over this contentious issue.

David L. Ter Molen is partner and member of the Food Industry Team at Freeborn & Peters LLP (Chicago).

Reference
1. abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567.  

 

>
Author(s): David L. Ter Molen

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • people holding baby chicks

    Serovar Differences Matter: Utility of Deep Serotyping in Broiler Production and Processing

    This article discusses the significance of Salmonella in...
    Contamination Control
    By: Nikki Shariat Ph.D.
  • woman washing hands

    Building a Culture of Hygiene in the Food Processing Plant

    Everyone entering a food processing facility needs to...
    Food Prep/Handling
    By: Richard F. Stier, M.S.
  • graphical representation of earth over dirt

    Climate Change and Emerging Risks to Food Safety: Building Climate Resilience

    This article examines the multifaceted threats to food...
    Best Practices
    By: Maria Cristina Tirado Ph.D., D.V.M. and Shamini Albert Raj M.A.
Manage My Account
  • eMagazine Subscription
  • Subscribe to eNewsletter
  • Manage My Preferences
  • Website Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the Food Safety Magazine audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of Food Safety Magazine or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • Two men standing in a produce storage facility having a discussion.
    Sponsored byOrkin Commercial

    Staying Compliant With FSMA

  • Deli Salads
    Sponsored byCorbion

    How Food Safety is Becoming the Ultimate Differentiator in Refrigerated and Prepared Foods

Popular Stories

Corporate manager talking with factory employees

Turning Resistance into Opportunity: Motivating Change in the Food Industry

Image of baby being fed infant formula

HHS Budget Request Beats Familiar Drum

Two men standing in a produce storage facility having a discussion.

Staying Compliant With FSMA

Events

June 26, 2025

How to Design and Conduct Challenge Studies for Safer Products and Longer Shelf Life

Live: June 26, 2025 at 2:00 pm EDT: During this webinar, attendees will learn how to conduct challenge studies for microbial spoilage and pathogen growth, including the common challenges encountered, laboratory selection, and use of predictive models.

July 15, 2025

Hygienic Design Risk Management: Industry Challenges and EHEDG Guidance

Live: July 15, 2025 at 11:00 am EDT: From this webinar, attendees will learn the importance of hygienic design to ensure food safety and sanitation effectiveness.

May 11, 2026

The Food Safety Summit

Stay informed on the latest food safety trends, innovations, emerging challenges, and expert analysis. Leave the Summit with actionable insights ready to drive measurable improvements in your organization. Do not miss this opportunity to learn from experts about contamination control, food safety culture, regulations, sanitation, supply chain traceability, and so much more.

View All

Products

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

See More Products
Environmental Monitoring Excellence eBook

Related Articles

  • Food Safety and GMO Labeling: Two Federal Bids to Reduce Patchwork Rules

    See More
  • Food date labeling example

    Food Date Labeling Act Would Tackle Confusion Over Safety and Quality Issues

    See More

Related Products

See More Products
  • 1119160553.jpg

    Food Safety: Innovative Analytical Tools for Safety Assessment

  • 1119053595.jpg

    Food Safety for the 21st Century: Managing HACCP and Food Safety throughout the Global Supply Chain, 2E

  • global food.jpg

    Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

See More Products

Related Directories

  • National Environmental Health Association (NEHA)

    We support over 7,000 environmental health professionals globally, offering top-tier credentialing, educational materials, and events. Our FSMA courses include PCQI, FSVP, and IAVA. We employ experts to ensure the highest standards in practice and testing, fostering career growth and networking through our community and peer-reviewed journal. https://www.neha.org/FSPCA-PCQI-training.
  • Elanco Animal Health

    ELANCO (NYSE: ELAN) is a global animal health company serving customers in more than 90 countries. The Elanco Poultry team combines industry-leading products and services with their professional experience and collaboration skills to help customers remain confident of success in the ever-changing poultry industry. Our team includes consultants with extensive veterinary knowledge and experience. Our industry-leading products focus on intestinal integrity, bioprotection, nutrition.
  • KLEANZ Food Safety Technologies

    KLEANZ Food Safety Technologies is proud to be the leader in software and services for the Food and Beverage industry. For over 30 years, we have ensured that our clients’ Food Safety, Sanitation Management, and Maintenance needs are satisfied and streamlined. We pride ourselves in helping our clients mitigate risk.
×

Never miss the latest news and trends driving the food safety industry

eNewsletter | Website | eMagazine

JOIN TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Directories
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • eNewsletter
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2025. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing