Why Not Label Bioengineered Foods?

The folks at Procter & Gamble must be having a fit. Barely a year ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration publicly embarrassed the consumer products giant by seizing 12,000 gallons of its popular Citrus Hill Fresh Choice brand orange juice. The agency said that calling the juice “fresh” was misleading because it was made from concentrate.

The move was part of a high-profile crackdown led by FDA Commissioner David Kessler to force companies to be more honest, accurate and forthright in complying with food labeling laws. Indeed, Kessler has made labeling of food and drugs a personal priority.

It now appears, however, that the FDA will not require the same level of honesty and accuracy from companies that create new food products using genetic engineering techniques. The Bush Administration recently announced that bioengineered foods will be treated under the same regulatory regime as “ordinary” foods.

Critics argue that this ruling will ultimately endanger the nation’s food supply. They insist that each and every genetically engineered food be rigorously tested for safety. Unfortunately, the bio-Luddites have missed the real issue. The problem won’t be safety; it will be disclosure. With biotechnology, the traditional vocabulary to describe foods becomes radically redefined.

When you can manipulate the genetic structure of a plant, what does “fresh” really mean? One of the first bioengineered foods will be the FlavrSavr--a designer tomato from Davis, Calif.- based Calgene.

The FlavrSavr tomato has had its genetic code “edited” to block out the gene that tells the tomato to start rotting. Consequently, the FlavrSavr stays “fresher” longer. Thus, a grocery store could keep a FlavrSavr tomato on its shelves a few days longer than an “ordinary” tomato.

So why is a bioprocessed FlavrSavr inherently more fresh than orange juice concentrate? “That’s an intriguing question,” says Michael R. Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for policy, “but I think it’s the difference between the degree of processing versus shelf life.”

The key point is that the FDA will not now consider genetic manipulation--the insertion of a new gene, or the modification of an existing enzyme--to be a food “additive.” This means that companies which bioengineer foods to enhance their flavor, texture, color, durability or shelf-life may not have to disclose that fact.

Taylor stresses that the FDA “will require disclosure when appropriate to the composition or material consequences” of the product. For example, if a bioengineered tomato has only half the “normal” vitamin C content, says Taylor, that fact should be disclosed. But he acknowledges that biotechnology raises so many questions that “we can’t decide all these things in advance.”

Drawing these legalistic lines, however, will become more challenging over time. Unfortunately for the FDA--and the American consumer--the absence of a labeling law will enable food producers to play all kinds of legitimate biotech tricks with their products.

Let’s stick with the tomato. Suppose plant geneticists find the gene responsible for the color of the tomato’s skin. They’re now able to amplify that gene so that it makes their tomatoes a gorgeous, succulent red--even though the color now has no relation at all to taste or ripeness. Today, it’s illegal to color tomatoes with dye to make them appear more juicy. But, under the new biotech regulations, a food company or store wouldn’t have to reveal that the tomato’s wonderful color was “engineered.”

To be sure, some companies will be delighted to disclose that bioengineering could make romaine lettuce crispier, potatoes tastier or corn more flavorful. They’re hoping that bioengineering will give them a competitive edge in the market. But many people today seek out organically grown foods exposed to few or no insecticides and preservatives. Don’t they have the right to know if the broccoli they’re buying is a beautiful Kelly green because of a gene implant? Cosmetic changes may not effect the safety of the food, but they may be grossly misleading nonetheless.

Shouldn’t the role of a regulatory agency be to ensure that consumers have adequate labeling to make informed buying decisions? Industry’s arguments against labeling--that it costs too much or might “scare” consumers--is simply corporate self-indulgence.

The real challenge for the FDA in a world of biotechnology is, what constitutes “adequate” labeling? Do you stamp a little double helix on each tomato or celery stalk? Or do you describe the results of the bioengineered plant: more flavor, fewer calories and so on.

Biotechnology should ultimately offer consumers a cornucopia of desirable products and produce. That potential, however, does not excuse the government and the marketplace from disclosing to consumers the technologies that make that bounty possible.