Business Week | January 24, 2000
C. Manly Molpus, President and CEO, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Washington, writes that "Are bio-foods safe?" (Science & Technology, Dec. 20) may have overlooked some key issues. First, the Food & Drug Administration enjoys the confidence of U.S. consumers precisely because its labeling regulations are rational and based on science. Existing FDA regulations ensure that food labels will be meaningful and wisely protect against confusing or even alarming consumers with irrelevant information.
Some California activists are now demanding labels to identify machine-harvested as opposed to handpicked tomatoes. Swiss environmentalists have tried unsuccessfully to mandate a label indicating whether water used in the processing of foods was recycled. But labels bearing such information would convey irrelevant messages, imply incorrectly that the buyer needs to be warned of unspecified dangers, raise costs throughout the production and distribution chain, and detract from important information that's on the label.
Labeling biotech foods will only create chaos. Today, with more than half of U.S. meals eaten outside the home, the label doesn't reach most foods consumed. In Britain, a new labeling law sparked a stampede by manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants to rid their products of biotech foods so they wouldn't have to post warning labels on their products.
The need to segregate biotech foods, especially the thousands of processed foods that contain small amounts of derivatives of corn or soybeans, would raise production costs in a low profit-margin sector. If some people want to avoid biotech foods, niche markets will arise are willing to pay a premium for foods certified to be "biotech-free," as they do for kosher, halal, and organic products. No government mandate is needed.
