New Mandatory GMO Labeling in U.S. Will Not Do Any Favors (And Will Probably Make Matters Worse)

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs for short, have been a source of controversy over the years. Those who derisively criticize foods with GMO ingredients as Frankenfoods have pushed for GMO labeling. Their dream has come true. In 2016, Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS). This Standard states that there is to be a national mandatory standard for labeling GMOs as "bioengineered." At the beginning of this year, the Standard took into effect and products made with genetically modified ingredients are legally required to be labelled as "bioengineered."  As nice as it sounds to keep consumers well-informed, mandating GMO labels comes with its own share of issues. 

GMOs Are Not Bad for Your Health

When I criticized the state of California for trying to pass a similar law in 2012, one of my main arguments against such a labeling scheme was that GMOs do not present unique risks to an individual's health. My argument holds as much today as it did a decade ago. GMOs are as safe as any other food. If you need proof of that, here are some examples of medical experts confirming that very point:

• The World Health Organization states that "All genetically modified foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and no effects on human health have been shown as a result of consuming GM foods."
• After reviewing more than 900 studies, the National Academies of Science concluded that "no differences have been found that implicate a higher risk to human health and safety from [current] GE foods from their non-GE counterparts (2016, p. 19)."
• In the European Union, they all but ban GMOs. Even so, the European Commission looked at multiple studies over 25 years to realize that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies (2010, p. 16)."
• Pew Research surveyed 3,748 scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists. Pew found that 88 percent of scientists surveyed agree that GMOs are safe to eat. Contrast that with the 37 percent of U.S. adults who believe that it is safe. 
• Italian researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 6,006 studies (Pellegrino et al., 2018). Aside from showing that there is greater crop yield with GMOs, GMO crops have lower rates of mycotoxins, fumonisins, and thricotecens, all of which cause economic loss and harm to humans and animals. In other words, this meta-analysis argues that GMOs are healthier.
• In March 2020, the USDA said that "GMO foods are carefully studied before they are sold to the public to ensure they are as safe as the foods we currently eat. These studies show that GMOs do not affect you differently than non-GMO foods."

GMO Label Laws Are Unnecessary

If all of that empirical evidence and advice from premier medical organizations is not enough to sway you, the U.S. Department of Agriculture admitted in 2018 that NBFDS "is not expected to have any benefits to human health or the environment." The very government agency that is to enforce this GMO labelling knows that its GMO labeling regulations will have no effect on human health. So much for "following the science!"

However, it is more than the health implications to show that mandatory GMO labels are useless. According to the Center for Food Safety, 75 percent of food in the U.S. contains GMOs. If GMOs are really that pervasive and commonly used, what practical function would such a label have? That concern seems to have played out in practice. As researchers from University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Amherst, and Cornell University concluded in a November 2021 paper, "In the presence of existing non-GMO labels, mandatory labelling did not have any additional effect on demand (Adalja et al., 2021)." When Vermont briefly had its state-level GMO labeling scheme, a University of Vermont researcher found that GMO labeling laws actually decreased opposition to GMOs (Kolodinsky and Lusk, 2018). 

Repercussions for Agricultural Sector

Not only is the science nearly unanimous on the fact that GMOs are not uniquely bad for one's health. Finding ways to limit GMO production will mean harming the agricultural sector. Genetically engineered crops are commonly used for such species as corn, soybeans, alfalfa, cotton, and canola. The American Enterprise Institute illustrates how less of these technologies limits crop production (Brester, 2018). Using alternatives would mean needing to use more water, land, and other inputs to keep up with global food production. A trio of Danish researchers similarly concluded that the European Union's current GMO laws hinder Europe's agricultural production (Christiansen et al., 2019).

Undermining Science and Scientific Credibility

We have had enough bad scientific advice and restrictions surrounding the COVID pandemic, whether that has been lockdowns, travel bans, mask mandates, or school closures. The missteps of the CDC and FDA had resulted in greater mistrust in public health, with about half of Americans not trusting these institutions. This Standard continues to erode trust in public health advice because it ends us legitimizing bad science. The Standard compels companies to engage in a form of speech that misleads customers in thinking GMOs are bad. 

Cost of GMO Labeling Scheme

Not only has the USDA admitted that the GMO regulations will do nothing to help with health or the environment, but that these regulations will cost taxpayers. The USDA calculated that the costs of NBFDS would "range from $598 million to $3.5 billion for the first year, with ongoing annual costs between $114 million and $225 million." Is this a lot in the grand scheme of things? No. Remember that the U.S. GDP for 2020 was $20.9 trillion and that the federal government spent $6.8 trillion in fiscal year 2021. Even using the higher estimates of the Standard's costs (i.e., over $5 billion over the next decade), they seem like drops in the bucket in comparison to the U.S. economy. At the same time, we are talking about a labeling scheme that does nothing to protect consumer health and does harm to the agricultural sector. Paying one cent is too much, never mind spending millions. 

Conclusion

One of the main purposes of food labels is to warn the consumer about potential health risks. Why create a GMO label if the science is telling us there is no unique health threat caused by GMOs? Why are we spending taxpayer dollars to undermine health expertise, as well as the agricultural sector? If a producer wants to voluntarily label their products "GMO-free," that is their prerogative. However, the U.S. government has no business thrusting such a pointless labeling scheme on to the American people.