Reuters | November 12, 1999 | By Julie Vorman
WASHINGTON - The Clinton Administration should not bow to activist pressure for labels on bioengineered foods because such a move would undermine the credibility of U.S. negotiators in world trade talks at the end of the month, some of the nation's biggest farm and food groups said Monday.
The Food and Drug Administration's regulation of genetically modified food - and especially the issue of labels - has rapidly escalated into a debate with broad implications for food and seed companies and exports of U.S. commodities.
In a letter to President Bill Clinton, 38 farm and food groups came out swinging against labels.
"The United States is engaged in biotechnology-related discussions in numerous international forums and it is critical that U.S. efforts to encourage science-based regulatory regimes globally are not undermined by changes to U.S. labelling policy," the letter said.
Genetically altered food is expected to be hotly debated when the World Trade Organization meets in Seattle later this month to launch a new round of trade talks.
The letter was signed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's biggest farm group, the National Cron Growers Association, U.S. Grains Council, National Restaurant Association, Grocery Manufacturers of America, and others.
But on the other side are an array of environmental and consumer groups who are demanding the FDA require labels on snack chips, salad dressings, baked goods and other foods containing genetically altered ingredients.
They also want the government to force companies to adopt strict testing and monitor health or environmental risks.
The FDA will launch a series of public hearings next week in Chicago on how it regulates genetically modified foods.
In the letter to the president, the food and farm groups said activist pressure for labels could "undermine the credibility the FDA currently enjoys" as an independent, science-based regulatory agency.
Currently, the FDA does not require labels on food made with transgenic crops such as soybeans or corn, unless it changes the nutritional content or introduces an allergen.
U.S. food companies oppose labels as confusing and costly. They contend consumers can get information from the Internet, brochures at grocery stores or toll-free telephone numbers.
But consumer and green groups see it differently.
They contend that while the FDA requires labels that tell if orange juice is made from concentrate, U.S. consumers are even more hungry to know if their food contains bioengineered ingredients.
"Labels should be mandatory for all genetically engineered products, whether or not current testing techniques can detect foreign DNA," the Sierra Club, Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 21 others said in a letter to the FDA.
"The label should be straightforward and informational, and not include value-laden words like 'improved with' or 'enhanced by' genetic engineering," the letter said.
The FDA can force food companies to add label information to satisfy consumer demands, or to identify key changes in the manufacturing process such as irradiation treatment to kill bacteria and extend the shelf life.
Government scientists say the new crop varieties are safe and substantially the same as conventional ones, but with carefully-selected genes added to fight pests.
In Congress, opinion is sharply divided over transgenic crops.
Republican Rep. Nick Smith, a farmer who heads a House Science subcommittee, recently blamed European activists for "poisoning" American confidence in bioengineered foods.
But more than 40 Democrats and a handful of Republicans this week introduced a bill calling for labels on any food containing 0.10 percent or more of a transgenic ingredient.
American farm groups are also worried. With half of this year's U.S. soybean crop and one-third of the corn harvest grown from bioengineered varieties, the reluctance of Europe, Japan and other nations to buy the commodities could disrupt badly-needed export sales.
