|
A dissertation submitted by Janice Lee Albert in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are widely used in the United States of America(US); however, many consumers are unaware that they are consuming GM foods. Food labeling to inform consumers that a product is GM or is not GM has been proposed to reduce the information asymmetry between sellers and buyers. The guidance for industry for voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM foods proposed by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in 2001 was the main focus of the research. The European Union’s (EU) 2003 regulation for mandatory labeling of GM foods was also analyzed. Representatives of the biotechnology industry, conventional and organic farmers, food manufacturers, critics of agricultural biotechnology and consumer rights advocates,
as well as US officials and researchers, were interviewed from May 2003-April 2004. Their views about labeling policies were compared with official records and research
about consumer perceptions of GM foods and labeling.
As required by law, FDA held public meetings and obtained public comments to
inform citizens and enable them to express their views about the proposed labeling policy.
Stakeholder perceptions of these consultation procedures were the topic of one paper.
Some stakeholder groups perceived the procedures to be flawed. The study concluded
that the technical and legal parameters for labeling in the US were misunderstood by
some stakeholders, leading to ineffective use of the procedures.
The food industry’s reactions to the US and EU labeling policies were the topic
of another paper. Food companies viewed disclosure of information about GM foods and
non-GM foods as business risks in markets where consumers were skeptical about GM
foods. In the US, food producers did not voluntarily label their products as containing
GM ingredients. In the EU, they avoided mandatory labeling by using non-GM
iv
ingredients. Neither labeling policy was enabling consumers to express their preferences
through informed purchasing decisions; thus the market was not functioning to serve both
sellers and buyers. Contrary to the view that labeling can help to resolve a controversy
by allowing individual consumers to make choices, the study demonstrated that
controversies over GM technology prevent the implementation of food labeling policies.
|
