Bioengineered Foods
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the labeling of food products,
including foods that are produced through recombinant DNA techniques
("bioengineered" foods). FDA published a policy in 1992 to provide guidance to industry
on scientific and regulatory issues related to bioengineered foods. FDA did not establish
special labeling requirements for bioengineered foods. If a food, including a
bioengineered food, is significantly different from its conventional counterpart, for
example in terms of its nutritional value or because it introduced a known allergen, this
information is required in the labeling of the product.
Recently European and other countries have proposed labeling requirements for foods
that have been created through genetic modification techniques or that contain
ingredients that are genetically modified. These types of foods have become of growing
interest in the United States as well.
FDA conducted three public hearings in 1999 to hear the views of consumers, producers
and others. The information available on consumer awareness and understanding of
bioengineered foods is very limited. Surveys in the U.S. have shown growing concern but
also limited factual knowledge. There are a variety of terms that are in use to describe
foods produced through bioengineering, such as "genetically engineered," "genetically
modified," "genetically modified organism (GMO)," "modern biotechnology," "foods
derived through biotechnology," "bioengineered foods," and "food derived through
recombinant DNA techniques."
FDA conducted a series of consumer focus groups in Spring 2000 to help better
understand how U.S. consumers think about these issues. The focus groups were
designed to provide insight into consumers' awareness of foods produced through
biotechnology, their familiarity and understanding of possible terms for describing these
foods, and their reactions to options for identifying whether foods are or are not products
of bioengineering.
Who should participate in these focus groups?
Prepare a moderator’s guide with 7 questions and then place the questions in the order to
be asked.
Participant Screener for Focus Groups on Genetically Modified Foods
Recruiting Goals
The participants shall be consumers from the general population. There will be three
groups held in [facility name] in [location] on [dates].







The focus groups shall have participants in the 18-65 age group, with a high
school or college education level.
12 participants will be recruited for each of 3 groups (for expected attendance of
8-9 participants per group.
All groups shall have equal representation of men and women.
All participants must be able to read and speak English.
Persons who work or have worked at, or have a family member who works in the
food and/or agricultural industry, the Food and Drug Administration, United
States Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency shall
be excluded.
Persons should be the primary grocery shopper in their household.
Respondents cannot have participated in a focus group or other qualitative
research study in the past year.
Hello [Mr./Ms.] ____________, my name is ___________ and I'm calling from
________.
We are presently working with ORC/Macro International, a research and consulting firm,
on a project regarding health issues among general populations. Could I ask you a few
short questions for this survey?
Screening Questions
1. Do you shop for groceries for your household?
o Yes ---- Continue
o No ---- terminate
2. Have you heard anything about genetically engineered foods that are produced by
biotechnology?
o Yes ---- Continue
o No ---- Skip next question
3. Do you Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree or Strongly Disagree with the following
statement:
"Until we know more, biotechnology should not be used to
develop new food products."
Those who answer Strongly Agree or Agree would go in the GM concerned focus
group.
4. I'm going to read a list of age groups to you. Could you please tell me which
group you are in?
o Under 18 ---- terminate
o 18-65 ---- continue
o Over age 65 ---- terminate
5. Have you or any members of your immediate family ever worked for the Food
and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture or the
Environmental Protection Agency?
o Yes ---- terminate
o No ---- continue
6. Record gender (ask if uncertain)
o Male
o Female
7. Have you participated in a focus group within the last year?
o Yes ---- terminate
o No ---- continue
8. What is your ethnic background?
o African American
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o Caucasian (white)
o Hispanic
o Native American
o Other (please specify)
9. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
o Did not complete high school ---- terminate
o High school graduate ---- Continue
o Two years of college --- Continue
o Community college, junior college or vocational school --- Continue
o Undergraduate degree ---- Continue
o Master's degree or above ---- terminate
We would like you to participate in a group discussion on health issues. The
discussion will take place on [Date], at [time]. It will last about 1-1/2 hours, and
you will be given [$amount] cash for your time. Would you like to participate?
o
o
Yes ---- Continue
No ---- terminate
I would like to send you a confirmation letter and directions to the facility. In order to do
so, could you please tell me your mailing address and give me a phone number where
you can be reached.
We are inviting only a few people, so it is very important that you notify us as soon as
possible if for some reason you are unable to attend. Please call us if this should happen.
We look forward to seeing you on [Date] at [time].
Moderator's Guide with Associated Handouts
Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
Usual introduction and background on focus groups. Ice breaker question.
Today we are going to talk about labeling issues that arise from the new DNA
manipulation technologies that scientists have developed over the past 20 years. In recent
years these technologies have been applied to develop new varieties of foods and
agricultural products. We often refer to these applications as food biotechnology or
genetic engineering.
I. Priors
1. What have you heard about food biotechnology?
2. When you hear the terms like "bioengineered food", "genetically modified food"
or "genetically engineered food", what comes to mind?
3. Are there any important differences between these terms? What are they?
4. Is there anything about these types of food that might concern consumers?
5. Is there anything about these foods that worries you personally?
6. How are these concerns being addressed, if at all? By whom?
7. Who do you think is responsible for ensuring the safety of these foods?
8. Have you heard anything in the news lately about genetically engineered foods?
9. Are there any genetically engineered foods in your supermarket? What are they?
10. How can you tell if a certain food or food ingredient is genetically engineered or
contains genetically modified ingredients?
II.
Background
Widespread nature of bioengineered ingredients in processed foods.
Handout: List of foods tested for GM ingredients as reported by the Union of
Concerned Scientists
Moderator reads:
The foods most likely to be genetically engineered today are some of the common grains
such as corn and wheat, soybeans, and some cooking oils. Based on safety and
composition studies, the U.S. government is confident these bioengineered foods are safe
for human and animal consumption.
According to recent estimates, 25 to 50 percent of these crops in the U.S. and Canada use
genetically engineered seeds. The August 1999 Consumer Reports estimated that 60
percent of all processed foods that are on supermarket shelves today contain some
amounts of genetically engineered ingredients. One reason that processed foods are likely
to have genetically engineered ingredients is that grains and oils from bioengineered
plants are not usually kept separate after harvesting from those that are not bioengineered.
What this means is that many processed foods that contain grains, soy or oil will contain
a mixture of bioengineered and non-bioengineered ingredients.
1. Are you surprised by the amount of genetically engineered food that is available
today?
2. What, if anything, concerns you about the current situation?
3. Do you think products like these need any special type of labeling, or not?
Explain.
4. Given these circumstances, what kinds of information do you think that
consumers need?
1. Possible labeling for different types of food products that contain GM
ingredients
Now lets talk about some examples of the different kinds of products that could have
some kind of biotech labeling. Here is a list of some products that may already be on the
shelf in your local supermarket, some others are close to being introduced into the
marketplace, and others are still in the research and development phase. We want you to
have a sense of the whole range of products that are involved when we discuss labeling
options.
HANDOUT LIST OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING GE INGREDIENTS (cake mix, corn
oil, canola oil, Flavr-Savr tomato, vitamin A rice, and growth hormone salmon) Read the
product descriptions. (Handout 1)
Now I want to describe some possible kinds of labeling so that we can talk about how
you think these options will work for the 6 examples of genetically engineered products.
Option 1:
3. Do you think, for example, that one or more of them should have a simple statement
such as "Genetically modified food" or "Contains genetically modified ingredients"
somewhere on the label? Which one needs this kind of labeling the most? Which one
needs it the least?
4. Where do you think such a disclosure needs to be on the label? On the front of the
package or included in the ingredient list? Should it vary by product?
5. Do you think a seal or logo of some kind would be better or worse than a simple
statement?
6. How do you think consumers will respond to such disclosures? Will it make them
more or less likely to buy the product?
Option 2:
1. Do you think a more product specific kind of disclosure statement might be better,
such as "Genetically modified to increase Vitamin A content" or "Genetically
modified to grow faster" or "Contains soy from plants genetically modified to be
pest resistant." Or "Grown from plants that have been genetically modified to
resist herbicides."
2. Why do you think these kinds of statements might be better or worse than Option
1?
3. What is the added value to you as a consumer from this kind of labeling?
4. Which product needs this kind of labeling the most? Which product needs this
kind of labeling the least?
Option 3:
1. Do you think that a statement such as "Caution: Contains genetically modified
ingredients. Long term effects have not been determined" might be appropriate
for one or more these products?
2. What is the added value to you as a consumer from this kind of labeling?
3. How do you think consumers will respond to such a statement? Will it make them
more or less likely to buy the product?
4. Which product needs this kind of labeling the most?
2. Possible labeling for products that do not contain GM ingredients
HANDOUT LIST OF PRODUCTS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN GE INGREDIENTS
(organic carrots, milk, and tortilla chips) (Handout 2)
Here is another set of products that might have labeling related to genetic engineering.
This time the products do not contain any genetically engineered ingredients, and they
may or may not choose to say so in their labeling.
Option 1:
1. Such products, for example, might choose to include a statement on the label like,
"Does not contain genetically engineered ingredients." Or "This product is GM-Free"
2. Which of these products do you think would be most likely to choose to claim that
they are "GM-Free" or "Do not contain any genetically engineered ingredients?" or
"Does not contain rBST"?
3. For what purpose do you think they would choose to use such a label? Would the
likely purpose differ by product? How would it differ by product?
4. What is the value to consumers of this kind of labeling?
5. Which of these products, if any, should be allowed to say that they are healthier for
you or safer than comparable foods that may be genetically engineered?
6. Do you think products such as these should be able to make statements about the
safety and healthfulness of other foods even when there is no scientific consensus that
the statement is true?
7. Do you think this is a good way for consumers to become educated about food
biotechnology?
Option 2:
1. Some products might choose to include a statement that claims that they do not have
a specific kind of GM ingredient or use a specific kind of GM technology. A dairy
product, for example, might say "Made from cows that have not been treated with
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
rBST" (recombinant bovine somatotropin is a growth hormone made by genetic
engineering that increases the production of milk in treated cows).
Do you think there is added-value information in knowing that a certain product has
not been subjected to a specific kind of genetic engineering technology? What is the
added-value?
Is this a good way for the public to become educated about food biotechnology?
What if the dairy product that chose to use such a statement was required to have a
disclaimer, such as
"The FDA finds there is no significant difference between milk from cows treated
with rBST and untreated cows. No test can distinguish between milk from treated and
untreated cows"
What is the purpose of such a statement?
Do you feel that this is a good way to prevent the public from being misinformed
about biotechnology?
Can you think of better ways to control the flow of misleading information to the
public about biotechnology?
3. Labeling Terminology
There are many different ways to say that a product does not contain genetically
engineered ingredients. Look at the follow list of statements. (Handout 3)
1. Which of these statements mean the same thing? Which are clear/easy to
understand?
2. Some of these statements use words like "Certified" or "Suppliers guarantee".
3. What do you think is meant by these terms?
4. Is the use of such terms based on scientific testing?
5. How do you know what the standards are for these terms?
6. Is this a problem?
7. In Europe, the proposed definition for GM-free is that the product contains less
than 1% genetically engineered ingredients by weight.
8. Would that be a satisfactory definition for you? Why? Why not?
Wrap Up.
1. We've looked at several different types of products and the different ways
information about bioengineered foods and non-bioengineered foods can be shown on
labels.
2. Do you think there should be an information program that explains the risks and
benefits of genetically engineered foods to the general public?
3. Is there any other information we haven't discussed that you think needs to be on the
label or in stores, that tells consumers about GE ingredients or foods?
Handout 1: List of Possible Genetically Engineered Products
Example 1: Cake Mix
 A familiar and popular brand of cake mix
 Sold in supermarkets
 Used for many years by a broad mix of consumers
 Traditional ingredients, such as flour, that is now being made from wheat that has
been genetically modified to tolerate a commercial herbicide.
 The genetically modified wheat makes it easier for farmers to control weeds, and
thereby increase crop yields and lower consumer prices.
Example 2: Corn Oil
 A familiar and popular brand of cooking oil
 Sold in supermarkets
 Used for many years by a broad mix of consumers
 Made from corn that has been genetically modified to resist insect pests.
 Process that extracts the oil from the corn, which involves heat, destroys the
corn's DNA so there is no DNA in the cooking oil.
 There is no way to tell whether the oil was made from genetically engineered corn
or conventional corn.
Example 3: Canola Oil
 A new brand of cooking oil
 Sold in supermarkets
 Has a claim that it contains more lauric acid, an unsaturated fatty acid that is less
likely to raise cholesterol, than other canola oils.
 It has more lauric acid because it is derived from genetically engineered plants.
 There is no protein or residual DNA in the cooking oil, but because it is
nutritionally different from other canola oils, it must state on the label that it is
"high lauric acid canola oil"
Example 4: Flavr SavrTM Tomato
 New strain of tomatoes produced by genetic engineering
 Sold in the fresh produce section of the supermarket
 The genetic engineering inactivates an existing gene in tomatoes that makes them
go bad after they ripen.
 These tomatoes can stay in the field to ripen longer before they are picked. They
also stay fresh longer on the grocery shelf than other tomatoes.
Example 5: Vitamin A rice
 New strain of rice produced by genetic engineering
 Sold as a household staple and intended to be a significant part of the diet
 The genetic engineering takes a gene that produces Vitamin A from a harmless
strain of bacteria and puts this Vitamin A gene into rice.


The resulting rice can be a significant dietary source of Vitamin A and has the
potential to reduce Vitamin A deficiencies cheaply and effectively.
Vitamin A deficiency is a leading cause of blindness, mental retardation and other
diseases.
Example 6: Genetically modified salmon
 New strain of farm-raised salmon
 Sold in fresh fish counters of supermarkets, public fish markets and to restaurants
 Salmon engineered to grow faster to reach market size at an earlier age
 Modified a gene that regulates growth hormone levels. When it is sold, the
salmon does not contain higher than usual levels of growth hormone in the meat.
Handout 2: List of Likely Products that Do Not Contain Genetically
Engineered Ingredients
Example 1: Organic Carrots
 Carrots sold in the fresh produce section of supermarkets and health food stores
 Identified on the front panel as "organic"
 Targeted toward consumers who desire organically grown foods.
 Carrots are grown without using chemical fertilizers and pesticides and follow
growing and packing guidelines required for organic certification by USDA and
the State of California.
 One of these guidelines is that no genetically engineered strains can be used.
Example 2: Skim Milk
 Milk sold in the dairy case of supermarkets and health food stores
 Identified as not containing milk from cows treated with a particular bovine
growth hormone (rBGH)
 Label includes a statement comparing milk from cows treated and not treated with
rBGH
Example 3: Organic Tortilla Chips
 Snack food sold in supermarkets and health food stores
 Identified on the front panel as "organic"
 Targeted toward consumers who want organically grown foods.
Handout 3: Possible Labeling Terminology
Contains no genetically engineered ingredients.
Certified Organic
Certified organic corn and soy oil.
No genetically engineered ingredient is present in this product
Less than 5% of the ingredients (by weight) is genetically engineered
Our suppliers guarantee they do not plant genetically engineered seeds.
All natural ingredients
GM-free
HANDOUT
The following processed foods tested positive for being genetically modified (September
1999). The tests were not "safety tests;" they were only to establish the presence of
unlabeled genetically modified ingredients.



























Frito-Lay Corn Chips
Kellogg's Corn Flakes
General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal
Post Blueberry Morning Cereal
Heinz 2 Baby Food
Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula
Similac Isomil Soy Formula
Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula
Quaker Chewy Granola Bars
Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars
Ball Park Franks
Duncan Hines Cake Mix
Quick Loaf Bread Mix
Ultra Slim Fast
Quaker Yellow Corn Meal
Light Life Gimme Lean
Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix
Alpo Dry Pet Food
Gardenburger
Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite
Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers
Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms)
McDonald's McVeggie Burgers
Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix
Betty Crocker Bac-O's Bacon Flavor Bits
Old El Paso Taco Shells
Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix
Additionally, the following whole foods have been genetically engineered and approved
for commercial sales:









Canola Oil
Chicory, red hearted (Radicchio)
Corn
Cotton
Papaya
Potato
Soybean
Squash
Tomato
FINDINGS
A. Consumer Expectations and Beliefs
The groups discussed the general topic of bioengineering of foods and their
understanding of what this encompasses. Participants demonstrated an uneven knowledge
and understanding of bioengineered foods. On the one hand, they have heard a fair
amount about the uses of biotechnology in the context of medical and drug research and
other areas, and they are not surprised that biotechnology is being applied to foods. On
the other hand, most were vague about the details. Few participants could report on any
direct product experience with foods produced by biotechnology. Some had heard that
other countries in Europe did not want to import these types of American foods but most
of these participants were uncertain why. Very few participants had any sense of what
recombinant DNA procedures involved, and some participants had fanciful views on the
subject, e.g., Miracle-Gro as a form of bioengineering. For the most part, participants had
heard about biotechnology as a new technology with great potential, but they knew very
little about how it was being applied. Some participants, particularly in Vermont, had
heard about the rBST controversy from news stories. In other words, general awareness
was high, though largely abstract and based on second hand reports, while specific
knowledge was low.
Despite their limited technical understanding of bioengineered food, participants had well
developed and nuanced opinions of the wisdom of food biotechnology. These opinions,
both pro and con, reflected similar understanding of the potential benefits and dangers of
the technology, though individual participants weighed the benefits and dangers
differently.
Most participants recognized that food bioengineering is a powerful and promising
technology that offers both benefits and dangers to modern society. Several types of
benefits were mentioned, including feeding the world's hungry, improving agricultural
production to make it cheaper and easier to grow crops, and making possible new
varieties of foods with desirable characteristics such as improved taste, appearance or
nutritional characteristics. While fewer dangers were identified, there was strong
consensus as to what the major worry was--unknown long-term health consequences that
might be associated with the technology but which cannot be anticipated based on current
science or knowledge.
This widely held view that there might be unknown long-term consequences of food
biotechnology seems to be based on analogies that participants made between food
biotechnology and other technological innovations of modern agriculture. Some of the
examples that people considered similar to food biotechnology were use of pesticides,
growth hormones and antibiotics to promote animal growth; tomatoes bred for
transportability rather than taste; and novel products such as Olean. Cloning was
mentioned in several groups, often with concerns expressed about a progression to such
research on humans. In each case, participants saw a technological innovation that was
introduced mainly for the sake of producers/distributors, with little apparent benefit to the
consumer. Such innovations are seen as being approved by scientists and regulators, but
later found to have unanticipated long-term health effects. It is this hazard model, drawn
from recent experience with technological innovation, that underlies participants' views
about the wisdom of food biotechnology.
This hazard model includes roles for various actors such as producers, industry,
government regulators, scientists and consumers. It is marked by skepticism that the
interests of consumers are sufficiently taken into account by the other actors. Some
participants complained consumers are being used as "guinea pigs" and many were
doubtful that government regulators and scientists have the ability to counteract the
powerful profit motives of industry and producers.
For most participants, their concerns about food biotechnology did not include
recognition of possible environment or societal impacts of food biotechnology. Although
the monarch butterfly study was mentioned in several groups, there was little discussion
of the issue when it was mentioned. Most participants appeared to be unfamiliar with this
research. A few participants expressed concerns about negative impacts on small farmers
or problems with sterile seeds and contamination across fields but these mentions were
rare.
Most participants accepted as a matter of course that the short-term safety of
bioengineered foods can be determined by science and therefore it was not in question.
The concept of unknown deleterious long-term effects seemed to arise from a hazard
model based on their experience with the limitations of technology.
Opinions about food biotechnology varied considerably among participants. Many
participants recognized possible benefits and believed the risks should be tolerated for the
sake of these benefits. Men were more likely than women to express this opinion.
Participants who were more familiar and sympathetic with farmers also expressed the
view that the benefits of biotechnology may outweigh the risks. Level of knowledge
about food biotechnology was not obviously correlated with how people saw the
risk/benefit tradeoff. There was a degree of technological fatalism, the belief that
ordinary people can't have much influence over the spread of new technologies,
associated with acceptance of food biotechnology.
Understanding of various terms to describe bioengineered foods.
The participants were asked if they had heard of several terms that have been used to
describe foods produced by biotechnology. It was clear that participants did not have
marketplace experience with the terms. As a result they tended to evaluate the terms
linguistically--how accurate or appropriate these terms seemed to be as possible labels to
be used in marketing or product labeling for the designated class of products. The terms
"genetically engineered," "genetically modified," or "bioengineered" were viewed as
reasonably descriptive but linking the concept of engineering with food was off-putting to
some participants. The term "modification" was seen as a vaguer, softer way of saying
engineered. The "bio" prefix had a positive connotation for some participants. Terms
such as "product of biotechnology," or "biotechnology" had the least amount of negative
implication. Acronyms such as GM and GE, discussed later in the groups, were
unfamiliar to most participants and not viewed favorably. Most participants were
unfamiliar with the term "genetically modified organism" and considered it to be a
strange and inappropriate label for bioengineered foods since it seemed to imply that
foods are organisms or contain organisms, which people think is inaccurate and
unappealing.
Prior views of the need for labeling
Before discussing specific labeling options, participants were asked how they could tell if
a food had been genetically engineered or contain a genetically engineered ingredient.
Their response was to complain that they could not tell. Virtually all participants said that
bioengineered foods should be labeled as such so that they could tell whether a given
food was a product of the new technology. What is striking about participants' initial
discussion of their reasons for wanting biotechnology labeling is the widespread
perception that the information they want the label to provide is how the food product
was produced, rather than the compositional effect of the process on the food product.
Virtually no one mentioned wanting to know the specific effects of bioengineering on the
product as a reason for labeling. Instead, participants wanted to know whether the food
was a product of biotechnology because they were concerned about the potential for
unknown long-term effects of the technology, in particular health effects.
In other areas where we have done similar consumer research, such as nutrition labeling
and use-by-date labeling, consumers want information about product characteristics that
are relevant to their health and safety concerns. Typically, product characteristics capture
whatever is relevant about the processes used to produce the food product. In the case of
biotechnology labeling, however, information about product characteristics does not
exhaust what consumers want to know. The concept of unknown long-term effects, which
seems to underlie the demand for biotechnology labeling, implies that it is unknown
product characteristics that are of concern. A surrogate for knowing about unknown
product characteristics is knowing about the technology by which the product was
produced, which may explain why they want to know about the process.
B. Reaction to Specific Labeling Options for Claims about Biotechnology
The groups discussed the utility and acceptability of several labeling approaches. There
were three basic labeling approaches presented:
1. "Mere disclosure" (e.g., "contains genetically modified ingredients", "a
genetically modified food");
2. Disclosure plus statement of product effect or purpose (e.g., "genetically modified
to increase Vitamin A content", "contains soy from plants genetically modified to
be pest resistant") and
3. Caution statement (e.g., "Caution, contains genetically modified ingredients. Long
term effects have not been determined.")
Virtually all participants saw value in having "mere disclosure" labeling. They thought it
would allow them to make more informed decisions about whether or not to buy a
product. This desire to be informed did not imply any specific health and safety concerns
about the labeled product, but rather concerns about unknown long-term consequences of
food biotechnology. For those participants who said they would want to avoid products
they fear might have unknown long-term consequences, and any product produced by
biotechnology is considered liable to such effects, mere disclosure labeling is required to
exercise choice.
Many participants recognized symbolic value in choosing not to buy products of
biotechnology. They felt mere disclosure labeling gave them an opportunity to register
their view about the wisdom of food biotechnology, i.e., to support or not support the
dissemination of the technology, apart from their views about the health and safety
characteristics of the individual product. They said they wanted to "send a message" to
the company.
Participants were shown descriptions of six specific bioengineered foods (cake mix, corn
oil, canola oil, flavr-savr tomato, vitamin A rice, and growth hormone salmon). The
descriptions provided information on the ingredient or food that was bioengineered and
the purpose of the process. As participants considered the various examples, they began
to see the value of having more information than mere disclosure of whether products are
produced by food biotechnology. They saw value in being able to differentiate between
particular products rather than applying a blanket judgment to the technology as a whole.
As a consequence, they preferred label statements that give them more information about
how and why a product was bioengineered. Participants saw this kind of labeling as
accomplishing the same purpose as mere disclosure labeling, allowing them to register
their point of view about the wisdom of biotechnology, but also giving them helpful
product information and helping to educate them about the possibilities of the new
technology. Some participants were concerned about the practicality of such labeling,
questioning whether it might be too wordy or complicated for the average consumer to
understand. Most participants recognized that such labeling put a burden on the consumer
to become more informed. The general view was that it had to be executed well to be
effective. They emphasized that any descriptions must be simple to understand and "not
require a college degree" to make sense.
Participants rejected the option of warning-type labeling for products of food
biotechnology. A caution statement was seen as overly negative and too prescriptive.
Concern about long-term negative consequences of food biotechnology was considered
insufficient to justify an explicit warning statement. This suggests most participants
remained open-minded and open to future experience with foods produced by
biotechnology.
C. Reaction to GM Free Labeling Claims
Similarly, the groups discussed different ways to label foods that were not products of
biotechnology, using as examples three products that could plausibly show some type of
non-GM labeling (organic carrots, milk, and tortilla chips). The groups discussed the
utility and acceptability of three basic kinds of non-GM type labeling:
1. GM-free claims about the compositional status of the product (e.g., "GM-free",
"contains no genetically engineered ingredients)
2. Non-GM claims about how the product was produced (e.g., "not a product of
bioengineering", "not produced from genetically engineered seeds", "our suppliers
do not plant genetically engineered corn,")
3. Organic claims (e.g., "Certified Organic")
Participants viewed claims that a given food was not a product of biotechnology as being
a familiar type of product promotion claim, highlighting a product feature that some
people may value and making it easier for those who want such a product to find it and
buy it. Because such claims were seen as largely promotional in intent, they were not
held to very high standards, in the sense that a certain amount of puffery and advocacy
associated with the claim would be tolerated because it is easily discounted.
Nevertheless, participants did expect such claims to be accurate. They interpreted
compositional claims (e.g., "GM-free", "contains no genetically engineered ingredients"),
as meaning there should not be any bioengineered ingredient in the product. They
considered it deceptive to define "GM-free" so as to allow a small amount defined by a
threshold level. The prevalent view was that "free" means zero.
Participants had little problem with claims that described the process by which the food
or ingredient is produced such as "not a product of bioengineering", "not produced from
genetically engineered seeds", "our suppliers do not plant genetically engineered corn."
Such claims communicate relevant information in light of people's prior views about the
wisdom of food biotechnology. Participants had little appreciation of possible verification
and enforcement issues raised by such statements, in part because they saw such
statements as more promotional than scientific. For the same reason, participants saw
little value in requiring disclaimers to disavow health or safety implications of such
claims. For the most part, participants did not interpret process or compositional claims
about foods "not produced by biotechnology" as adding anything to their prior
understanding of the relative advantages of genetically modified foods compared to other
kinds of foods. Whatever implications they were likely to make from such claims
followed from their existing beliefs about the wisdom of food biotechnology. The idea
that such claims need a disclaimer seemed forced and unnecessary to most participants,
and it was often interpreted as a partisan stance that is pro-food biotechnology.
Participants also had little problem with certified organic claims standing in as surrogates
for "not genetically engineered" statements. The idea that organic foods are by definition
not products of food biotechnology seemed reasonable to most participants. To many
participants, organic foods represent a rejection of modern agricultural practices and
therefore stand at the opposite end of the spectrum from food biotechnology that
represents the highest level of modern technology.
Participants had a hard time discussing how food products that are not organic, but which
are also not products of food biotechnology should be described. Because such products
seemed to have mixed characteristics, the participants were not certain how they should
be described.
Prevalence of Bioengineered Foods in the U.S.
The moderator provided information about the prevalence of bioengineered foods in the
marketplace (initially through a short factual description read to participants, later groups
received a handout showing examples of everyday foods that are or contain
bioengineered ingredients). The discussion explored participants' reactions to this
information about the extent certain grain crops in the US are produced from
bioengineered seed and the extent such foods are present in processed foods.
After being presented with a factual account of the extent to which certain grain crops in
the US are being produced from bioengineered seed and the extent to which
bioengineered ingredients are present in processed foods, most participants expressed
great surprise that food biotechnology has become so pervasive in the U.S. food supply.
Even among participants who considered themselves well-informed about biotechnology,
many registered amazement. The typical reaction of participants was not one of great
concern about the immediate health and safety effects of unknowingly eating
bioengineered foods, but rather outrage that such a change in the food supply could
happen without them knowing about it.
Some participants remarked that bioengineered foods have been "snuck in" to the food
supply. They were mainly disturbed by the lack of public information and public input to
a major development in the quality of their food supply. This information about
prevalence served to reinforce the most negative and cynical views some participants
held about food biotechnology. Some participants saw this as evidence of a conspiracy to
keep consumers in the dark, that is, the rationale for not informing the public must be that
there is something to hide.