I place “consumer information” on a pretty high pedestal. In fact, these days, I spend much of my time trying to provide reliable scientific information to a public often confused by the deluge of apparently contradictory data. So it should come as no surprise that I’m a strong advocate of product labels that provide us with useful information. But, at the same time, I’m also wary of the ease with which inappropriate labeling can mislead consumers.
Let me begin with an interesting and disturbing case in point. A few years ago, a television “infomercial” touted the benefits of “Rio Hair Naturalizer,” a product aimed mostly at black women wishing to relax their curls. The guest “expert” on the show spoke of the horrors caused by other hair straighteners that relied on “harsh chemicals,” and then pointed to the product’s label with its “all natural” and “chemical free” claims. The host followed up on this by leading the audience in a chant of “What do we want to be? Chemical free!” Obviously, the product was not chemical free; nothing but a vacuum fits that description. It was, however, “natural.” The Rio hair relaxer was formulated with cupric chloride, a naturally occurring mineral. It relaxes curls, but also causes hair loss, green discoloration, blisters, and scalp burns. Over 50,000 women filed court complaints before the FDA put a stop to the nonsense by arguing that the label falsely claimed the product was chemical free.
Far less serious than this, but also misleading, are products that proclaim themselves to be “cholesterol free.” Technically, the statement may be correct, since cholesterol is found only in animal products, and these foods do not contain any ingredients derived from animal sources. But there are two problems here. First, the insinuation that other similar foods may not be cholesterol free, and second, that being cholesterol free offers a significant health benefit. For example, a vegetable oil that screams “no cholesterol” on its label suggests that other such oils do contain the substance. A popular cookie may declare it contains no cholesterol while it supplies huge amounts of fats that constitute a greater risk for heart disease than dietary cholesterol does. If we are interested in reducing heart disease risk, we should push for labels that tell us not only the fat content per serving, but also how this is distributed. It would be great to know the “trans fatty acid” content as well as the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats. A high ratio here may be protective against a host of diseases. Now that would be useful information.
And it is useful information that we hope to glean from a label, isn’t it? That brings us to the thorny issue of labeling genetically modified foods. Suppose a label states “contains no GMOs.” What message does that send? Does it not suggest that there is a reason to avoid GMOs? But genetically modified foods on the market have been approved by stringent regulatory agencies both in Canada and the us. They have been assessed for their effect on human and animal health as well as environmental safety. Not a single case of human disease has ever been attributed to any such food. But in spite of this, if consumers do want to see such labels, then the information has to be verifiable. This presents a problem: there may not be anything to verify, since there is no chemical difference between soy oil made from genetically modified soybeans and oil made from non-GMO beans. We may also see dishonest producers jumping on the bandwagon and labeling everything in sight as “GMO free,” including products for which genetic modification is not an issue. Do we need to see apples or oranges labeled as GMO free when no apples or oranges are genetically modified?
What if we go in the other direction and focus on labeling foods that are sourced from genetically modified plants? Clearly, a bag of soybeans, canola, or corn grown with the aid of this technology can be so labeled. But what about a ready-to-eat meal that lists cornstarch as an ingredient? The starch may have come from corn with a gene inserted to produce the insecticidal Bt toxin, but the starch cannot be distinguished from starch that comes from non-gm corn. Would it be labeled? What about meat from animals raised on genetically modified feed? Or eggs from chickens similarly raised? How about a tomato modified with a gene from another variety of tomato? Or cheese produced using the enzyme chymosin that was made by recombinant DNA techniques, but is identical to chymosin found in the stomachs of animals? If regulations that require foods containing gm components to be labeled are introduced, what will be the maximum amount allowed to be present without such a label? 1 percent? 5 percent? 0 percent? How can this possibly be enforced? How will gm crops be kept separate? How much will this cost?
There does seem to be a reasonable way out of this conundrum. Label foods not according to the process by which they were produced, but according to the contents of the final product. If a genetically modified food is nutritionally or compositionally different from its traditional counterpart, it should be labeled as such. If there is no difference, then what is the purpose of labeling? This actually is the current point of view of the Canadian government and its scientific advisors.
So how do we respond to those consumers who say they have the right to know what they eat, even if there are no safety concerns? Fine, but why focus only on gm foods, then? What about asking for declarations about the number of insect parts or rat droppings allowed per serving (there are regulations about these), or the specific pesticides or fertilizers used, or toxins introduced by traditional crossbreeding, or whether the food was grown hydroponically? What about labeling lima beans as a source of natural cyanide? Why not put a warning on alfalfa sprouts about the risk of E. coli 0157:H7 poisoning? Shouldn’t organic foods produced from crops sprayed with Bt bacteria be labeled? These bacteria release the same toxin as crops that have the Bt gene inserted. Don’t consumers have the right to be informed about these things? Obviously, the labeling issue is not a simple one, and there are diverse views—though not of equal validity. Dr. Andrew Weil, whose views on “natural healing” have turned him into a veritable industry, suggests “not to buy products whose labels list more chemicals than recognizable ingredients.” I wonder what he thinks “recognizable” ingredients are made of?