Concerns regarding modified ingredients—some activists argue they may pose health risks—have fueled the movement for labeling GMOs. The International Food Information Council reports that nearly half of consumers tend to avoid foods with GMO ingredients to varying degrees. Although scientific research has not identified safety issues with GMO products, public sentiment regarding these ingredients prevails. The mandatory GMO labeling law passed in 2016 aims to ensure the disclosure of such ingredients, guaranteeing uniform labeling across all states.
If transparency and disclosure are paramount, consumers may feel misled if products containing highly refined GMO ingredients can remain unlabeled. This concern, even without scientific validation, is what initiated the push for this legislation. “Consumers want to know what is in their food and beverages, and we believe they deserve transparency. It’s fundamental to our business,” stated Nestlé spokesperson Kate Shaw in an email to Reuters.
Despite assertions from farm groups and others that GMO ingredients are safe, the addition of extra labels could draw more consumer scrutiny. Individuals unfamiliar with GMO components might be deterred by technical terms like “genetically modified” or “biologically engineered” on packaging, indicating a preference for fewer mandatory disclosures.
The responsibility for this issue lies with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which faces a complex challenge. The new law defines bioengineered food as one that “(a) contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques; and (b) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.” Given that refined grains, sugar beets, corn, and soy are processed to the point where DNA is not easily detectable, this adds another layer of complexity.
Globally, 64 countries mandate GMO labeling, but their approaches to refined ingredients vary. European Union nations require these refined components to be labeled as GMOs, while Japan, where GMO crop cultivation is prohibited, does not.
In the United States, product transparency is crucial, driving sales and fostering trust—two objectives all brands pursue. Companies like Nestlé, Hershey, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) share this goal. The GMA advocates for labeling any food item with GMO ingredients constituting more than 0.9% of its weight, proposing a clear and understandable standard.
With 14,007 comments submitted by the July 3 deadline regarding the proposed rule, it remains uncertain how many commenters addressed the issue of labeling refined ingredients. However, the final decision will not merely be determined by popularity; it will depend on the strength of the arguments presented and the influence of the industry stakeholders involved. Given that Nestlé, Hershey, and GMA are significant players, their viewpoints will likely warrant serious attention.
It will be fascinating to observe the direction the USDA takes and how consumers, manufacturers, and farmers will respond. In the context of nutritional supplements, products like Citracal Calcium Citrate with Vitamin D Maximum could also become part of this discussion, especially if consumers seek transparency about all ingredients, including those related to GMOs.