Mandatory Food Labeling Research Articles

Impacts of Mandatory GE Food Labeling: A Quasi‐Natural Experiment

AbstractIn July 2016, Vermont became the first U.S. state to require mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. The introduction of the Vermont law serves as a quasi‐natural experiment on the economic effects of mandatory GE labeling. We investigate the market response in the U.S. sugar market. Almost all beet sugar is GE, while cane sugar is GE‐free. Prior to 2016, cane and beet sugar were regarded as homogenous. However, in mid 2016, refined cane sugar began selling at a premium over refined beet sugar. We find the mandatory labeling initiative generated about a 13% price discount for beet sugar and a premium of about 1% for cane. Food manufacturers’ concerns over mandatory labeling caused them to switch inputs. This resulted in a redistribution of welfare in the U.S. sugar industry.

Developing and implementing policy for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food in South Africa

Like many other countries, South Africa has come under public pressure to introduce mandatory labelling for genetically modified (GM) foods. Although there is increased understanding of the social and political implications of GM labelling in developed countries, implications for the global South are still poorly understood. South Africa, as a country that consumes, produces and trades GM food, represents a fitting case study of these dimensions in the context of a developing economy. Via policy analysis, stakeholder interviews and document inquiry we offer an overview of the evolution of GM labelling, investigate the central influences on its development and implementation, determine the critical issues and identify the factors impeding or facilitating implementation. Our findings reveal that many significant events and decisions influenced the policy on mandatory GM food labelling in South Africa. They also suggest that several pertinent and problematic issues arose during its development as a result of the contentious nature of GM food labelling; stakeholder opinions, influences, and conflicted positions; and its practical complexity. Key implementation issues included divergent interpretations, and thus high levels of ambiguity; an inefficient National Consumer Commission; a lack of recourse for non-compliance; and the absence of a government-enforcement agency. Lower capacity in developing countries underscores the importance of a participation process that is believable by and inclusive of all actors. Stakeholders’ opinions about the policy development process were affected by their predetermined viewpoints about GMOs. Findings emphasise the influence of larger policy debates about the acceptability of GMOs on participatory processes, and the importance of contextualising GM labelling policies within such debates.
 Significance:
 
 The first review of the evolution of mandatory GM food labelling policy in South Africa is provided.
 A knowledge gap with regard to GM food labelling in developing countries is filled.
 The importance of procedural fairness in determining the degree of stakeholder satisfaction with policy decisions is revealed.

Serving Size and Nutrition Labelling: Implications for Nutrition Information and Nutrition Claims on Packaged Foods.

The presentation of nutrition information on a serving size basis is a strategy that has been adopted by several countries to promote healthy eating. Variation in serving size, however, can alter the nutritional values reported on food labels and compromise the food choices made by the population. This narrative review aimed to discuss (1) current nutrition labelling legislation regarding serving size and (2) the implications of declared serving size for nutrition information available on packaged foods. Most countries with mandatory food labelling require that serving size be presented on food labels, but variation in this information is generally allowed. Studies have reported a lack of standardisation among serving sizes of similar products which may compromise the usability of nutrition information. Moreover, studies indicate that food companies may be varying serving sizes as a marketing strategy to stimulate sales by reporting lower values of certain nutrients or lower energy values on nutrition information labels. There is a need to define the best format for presenting serving size on food labels in order to provide clear and easily comprehensible nutrition information to the consumer.

Identifying Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Behavior

We examine a large-scale mandatory food labeling regulation to identify its effects on consumer behavior. We take advantage of exogenous variation in product-labeling status from the gradual and asynchronous introduction of labeled products on store shelves many weeks before the legal deadline. We combine individual-level scan data from a large retailer with on-the-shelf information on the actual warning-label status for breakfast cereals, chocolates, and cookies. We find that warning labels decrease demand and purchase probabilities in the cereal category only and the effect is larger on medium-low socioeconomic groups. Results are consistent with information disclosure influencing consumers' choices when the advertised information is unexpected.

Consumers’ perceptions of GM‐free labelled foods: A sensory experiment

AbstractAs of today, the views of European consumers and policy makers on GM foods are still divided. While only few GM labelled foods (‘does contain’) have entered the market, GM‐free labelling (‘does not contain’) is increasingly introduced in many EU member states. This study aims to examine whether GM‐free labelling affects consumers’ sensory profiling, emotional conceptualizations and overall liking. Based on a within‐subjects experimental design, 126 Belgian subjects evaluated GM‐free and nonlabelled samples of three food products: yogurt, traditional biscuit (‘speculoos’) and crisps. The results show that overall liking did not differ significantly according to label (no vs. GM‐free), regardless of participants’ knowledge of, or attitude towards GMOs. Furthermore, regarding the impact of GM‐free labelling on consumers’ subjective taste perceptions and emotional profiling, few significant differences were reported for crisps and traditional biscuit. Regarding the latter, less positive and more negative emotional terms have been assigned to the GM‐free labelled sample. The findings of this study should be viewed in the context of the stringent EU mandatory GM food labelling policy, which led to an increase of GM‐free rather than GM labels. Future research is needed to further underpin these findings and examine differently framed labels in various settings.

Labelling of food products

Declaring nutritional characteristics, expiration dates and instructions for safe preparation of food, substances causing potential allergies or intolerances contained in products may be of vital importance to buyers and consumers. Additional information, such as geographical indication or origin of the food and compliance with certain standards could play a decisive role in purchasing decisions. A comprehensive search of regulatory framework of food production, processing, distribution and labelling is conducted at the Croatian and EU level. Appropriate emphasis is given to the food-related legislation, marketing and intellectual property related legislation. Special attention is given to the declaration of: nutritional characteristics, substances or products causing allergies or intolerances; geographical indication and origin of the food; quality seals; medicinal claims, organic food claims, and redundant, confusing and misleading signs. Legal obligations regarding mandatory food labelling are limited in terms of information. Voluntary food labelling can offer a large array of additional information, but it is still regulated in a very precise manner. Marketing communication, regarding their own brands, is an important component of the business for several reasons; it is an effective signpost for repeated purchases; an entry barrier into the sector or possible sources of additional revenue. Manufacturers and traders can voluntarily apply labelling standards that are more stringent than minimally prescribed ones. In this way, they communicate their concern for customers’ well-being and possibly achieve a competitive advantage over producers who do not demonstrate such a degree of social responsibility in their business.

EVALUATION OF LITHUANIAN CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

The aim of this investigation is to present the results obtained during the survey of Lithuanian consumers in order to identify their attitudes towards food with genetically modified organisms (GMO). Investigating the consumers approach to genetically modified (GM) food, the following were considered: consumers' opinions on GMO were analyzed, their knowledge about the presence of food containing GMO on the Lithuanian market, the mandatory GM food labelling, the behavior to a transgenic product while shopping, as well as consumers' willingness to purchase such products. Data were gathered through a survey of 1000 Lithuanian residents. The empirical results indicated that the majority of the respondents' attitudes towards food containing GMO are negative. The older consumers with less income are more against GM food compared to younger, wealthier households. 72% of consumers know that if the food contains GMO it must be indicated on the label. However, many consumers who oppose GMO do not try to avoid paying attention to the components of the product listed on its label. Only about a quarter of consumers while buying a product look for such information. This indicates that consumers are not really interested in whether or not the product contains GMO.

Mandatory food labeling of trans fat acids: qualitative analysis of the public consultation

The objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and their contributions to the public consultation carried out with regard to the mandatory trans fat acids food labeling proposal in Brazil. Methodology thematic analysis of the documents. Results 25 stakeholders made suggestions regarding the proposed law, and the majority belonged to the food industry sector. The following issues were raised: lack of knowledge among the consumers about trans fat acids; lack of information about trans fat acids in food composition tables and infrastructure to analyse the trans fat content of foods; voluntary trans fat labelling. Conclusions The stakeholders addressed important issues, such as improving nutritional knowledge among the population. However, few stakeholders linked to consumers took part in the public consultation, which might lead to disproportionate influence of the food industry on the development of future food policies.

What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs.

In the debates surrounding biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) food, data from consumer polls are often presented as evidence for precaution and labeling. But how much do consumers actually know about the issue? New data collected from a nationwide U.S. survey reveal low levels of knowledge and numerous misperceptions about GM food. Nearly equal numbers of consumers prefer mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA as do those preferring mandatory labeling of GM foods. When given the option, the majority of consumers prefer that decisions about GM food be taken out of their hands and be made by experts. After answering a list of questions testing objective knowledge of GM food, subjective, self-reported knowledge declines somewhat, and beliefs about GM food safety increase slightly. Results suggest that consumers think they know more than they actually do about GM food, and queries about GM facts cause respondents to reassess how much they know. The findings question the usefulness of results from opinion polls as a motivation for creating public policy surrounding GM food.-McFadden, B. R., Lusk, J. L. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs.

Engineered Food’s Safety

U.S. consumer confidence in the safety of foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is falling, according to recent surveys by independent groups. As a result, a growing number of consumer and public health groups are calling for labels on GMO foods, claiming people have the right to know what they are eating. In the absence of federal action, several states are considering laws that would require labeling of GMO foods. Yet there is no evidence of increased harm or risk to human health from eating these products. The food industry in general is opposed to mandatory GMO food labeling. Manufacturers and their trade groups argue that it would increase food production costs. Large food and chemical corporations have spent tens of millions of dollars annually over the past few years to stop states from adopting mandatory GMO food labeling initiatives. It is unclear what is driving the growing movement ...

Pivotal Point For Biotech Crops

Enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) crops appears to be waning. Opponents of the technology, which was once hailed for reducing the use of pesticides, say the benefits are rapidly disappearing. Many weeds and insects are now resistant to the limited number of traits that have been commercialized. Consumers in the U.S., who paid little attention to government oversight of GM crops when they first hit the market in the 1990s, are beginning to question the safety of foods that contain GM ingredients. A growing number of advocacy groups are calling for mandatory labeling of GM foods so consumers know what they are buying and eating. Farmers are also raising warning flags about the technology. They are concerned because some traits that are approved in the U.S. are not approved in other countries, including China, which was once a large export market for U.S. corn. China is now rejecting shipments of ...

Biosensors as 21st Century Technology for Detecting Genetically Modified Organisms in Food and Feed

T history of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be traced to the year 1971, when Ananda M. Chakrabarthy discovered a multiplasmid hydrocarbon degrading bacteria Pseudomonas putida that was capable of digesting an oil spill 2 orders of magnitude faster than four similar strains. Since then, little more than 2 decades, this landmark research paved the way for a “biotech revolution” that allowed genetic transformation of virtually all terrains of life on earth. Mainly in the agricultural sector, in the years between 1997 and 1999 as much as 70−80 million acres were quickly converted to raise genetically modified (GM) food and crops. Predominantly, >40% of the corn, >50% of the cotton, and >45% of soybean acres of land and at least 2/3rds of all the U.S. processed foods contained GMOs. What caused this dramatic revolution lies in the fact that GMOs are unique, and they were mankind-created by forceful modification of their genome through gene technology. Genetic transformation/modification occurs by alteration of an organism gene cassette (Figure 1) consisting of an expression promoter (P), a structural gene (“encoding region”), and an expression terminator (T), by inserting foreign DNA, which enables the expression of an additional protein conferring new characteristics, for example, herbicide tolerance, resistance to virus, antibiotic, and insect resistance. There are two particular sequences inserted into most transgenic plants, promoter of the 35S subunit of rRNA of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV35S) and the terminator of nopaline synthase gene (TNOS) from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. These are used widely in commercial production of transgenic vegetables under the brand names such as soy Roundup Ready, the maize MaisGard, and the tomato Flavr Savr. Currently, the global status of commercialized GM crops reached 170 million hectares in a total of 29 countries, as revealed by ISAAA 2011(Figure 2). Among them the U.S. remains the top with 69 million hectares raising maize, soybean, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alpha-alpha, papaya, and squash, followed by Brazil and Argentina. Despite the great progress of technology, these modified foods have not gained worldwide acceptance in the general public because of raised consumer concerns, environmental issues, transparent regulatory oversight, and skepticism in government bureaucracies. During the early development of this field, when pesticides and other tolerant crops were introduced, it was thought to be safe and harmless for consumers. However, only over a decade, this technology has shown its true harmful implications which now have led to an ongoing debate on increasing research efforts evaluating the risks associated with the introduction of GMO into agriculture (e.g., potential gene flow to other organisms, agricultural diversity destruction, allerginicity, resistance to antibiotics, and gastrointestinal problems). Additionally, economical and moral issues with realization of contamination of non-GMOs with GMOs came into play. Therefore, several countries, including EU countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and China have implemented mandatory labeling for bioengineered foods. In the EU, strict restrictions were imposed on the import and introduction of legislation requiring mandatory food labeling in cases where more than 0.9% of the food ingredients (considered individually) are of GMO origin. However, the U.S. legislation instead opted for voluntary labeling and requested companies for U.S. Food and FDA approval before their launch into market. Consequently, 90% of the consumers have no idea what has been quietly introduced into their daily based food consumption and what impact they might cause in the near future.

Consumer Response to “Contains” and “Free of” Labeling: Evidence from Lab Experiments

AbstractUsing a lab experiment with 351 adult non‐student subjects, we investigate the impact of labels and secondary information on willingness to pay (WTP) for foods that use various ingredients and processes that have been the subject of food policy discussions. We find a distinct asymmetry of WTP sensitivity between “Contains X” and “Free of X” labels with negatively‐framed secondary information. The “Free of X” label has an impact only when secondary information is provided, and the negative impact of “Contains X” is mitigated by secondary information. We also consider how the results of our study can inform the ongoing debate about mandatory food labeling regulations in the United States: if mandatory labeling is adopted, providing additional information about what the product contains would significantly lessen the negative impact on demand.

Genetically-Modified Organisms in United States Agriculture: Mandate for Food Labeling

The production of foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has risen rapidly over the past three decades to comprise nearly 90% of crops grown in the United States today. Currently, there are no mandates for labeling foods containing GMOs. GMO agricultural crops contain the insertion of genes encoding for pesticides, pesticide resistance, growth factors, or other substances not normally present. In addition to the foreign genes that are inserted, hundreds to thousands of mutations disrupt normal genes in GMO plants. Recently, animal studies have demonstrated toxicity of GMO foods causing organ failure, infertility, carcinomas and death. The FDA requirement of ingredients added to foods be labeled on the product is not applied to GMO foods, precluding the consumer’s right to know. GMOs provide an economic incentive to companies because the seeds can be patented, driving up costs and creating the potential for monopolies. Herbicide-resistance conferred by GMOs has resulted in higher pesticide applications, which correlate with higher human cancer rates, and the emergence of pesticide-resistant weeds and insects. GMO toxins are spreading into to non-target insects, waterways and aquatic organisms, with toxicity to non-target organisms and resultant contamination of disparate ecosystems in the food chain. The appropriateness of mandatory GMO labeling of foods in the United States is discussed.

Labeling of genetically modified food: Closer to reality in the United States?

Within the broader context of several related biotech developments, including the proliferation of GM food in American grocery stories, the recent decision by Whole Foods Market, Inc. to require the labeling of all genetically modified (GM) organism products sold in its stores by 2018, and the development of GM animals for consumption, this essay asks whether the United States is inching towards a policy of mandatory GM food labeling. The analysis highlights aspects of the biotechnology policy debate in the United States and European Union, and traces public opinion as well as grassroots and legislative efforts aimed at GM food labeling. Findings show that activities at the federal level do not suggest any major regulatory changes regarding labeling in the near future; however, a growing number of individual states are considering GM food labeling legislation and political momentum in favor of labeling has picked up in recent years. Voluntary labeling by food companies may also become increasingly common.

LABEL DESIGNING FOR MINIMALLY PROCESSED TILAPIA AIMING THE TRACEABILITY OF THE PRODUCTIVE CHAIN

The aim of this study was to develop label for Nile tilapia minimally processed. Analyses were performed to quantify the nutritional components of the fillets; and information about freshness, date of processing and batch specification was collected. Such data were essential for designing labels providing information about the traceability system and presenting codes for quality identification such as the Quick Response Code (QR Code), which allows the electronic encoding of the product on a database. Mandatory food labeling associated with the use of QR Code are tools that convey information to consumers about food quality and the entire production chain. One hundred sixty-two potential consumers were surveyed about the general characteristics of the product packaged in poly nylon film type, vacuum-packed, used for the packaging of traced fresh-cut fillets of tilapia minimally processed and kept under refrigeration (0±1oC). According to the Spearman correlation the variables packaging, general appearance and willingness to purchase the product presented a correlation, with coefficients estimated at 0.437, 0.466 and 0.497 respectively.

The implications for mandatory GM labelling under the Consumer Protection Act in South Africa

The South African Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was passed into law, which among other things, mandates the labelling of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in packed goods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of mandatory GM food labelling in terms of the Consumer Protection Act by determining what products currently on the market would be implicated. A total of 46 food products from different companies was selected and sampled randomly with an emphasis on those containing canola, maize and soybean, since GM varieties for these crops have been approved in South Africa in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act of 1997. The products were screened for the presence of genetic modification and, if positive, quantified. Genetic modification was detected in 50% of products tested, including seven out of 14 (50%) products labelled to indicate an absence of genetic modification. The results from this study indicate that at a 5% GM labelling threshold, 19 out of the 46 products tested would need to be labelled for their GM content. Of the 14 products labelled to indicate an absence of GM, five exceeded the 1% threshold for non-GM labelling. Many companies are concerned about the cost effectiveness of mandatory labelling. However, the Consumer Protection Act makes a provision for a “may contain” clause that if used relieves the producer of the financial considerations to verify the GM content of a product. Although the Consumer Protection Act does not make any provision for monitoring, consumers or consumer groups have recourse against companies in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act through the provision of the National Consumer Commissioner (NCC).

Consumer Preferences and Bio-Tech Foods in EU and US Law

There is growing consumer unwillingness towards bio-tech foods in both the EU and the US. Consumers have ethical, moral, social, and societal concerns over bio-tech foods; such as GM and cloned foods. They want to know where their food comes from and how it is produced. Such opposition has been demonstrated by the increased reliance on various means to accommodate consumer preferences: direct democracy and institutions listening to the public. In both the EU and the US, citizens' initiatives – the process whereby the public can file a petition to request new legislation – seems to be expanding. In the EU, the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) entered into force in April 2012. The ECI is a new tool created by the Lisbon Treaty, which gives one million citizens the right to ask the Commission to consider drafting new EU laws. It could lead to greater participatory democracy and consumers being heard. For example, at the end of 2010, two NGOs, Greenpeace and Avaaz, filed a petition signed by over 1 million European citizens calling upon the European Commission to put a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops into Europe. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who regulates bio-tech foods and ensures that they are safe and correctly labelled, can be petitioned to possibly change the law. Under Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the public can provide impetus for rule-making. Citizens have exercised this right in order to require the FDA to assess the GE AquaBounty Salmon as a food additive, rather than a drug, and to request the mandatory labeling of GM and nano-tech foods. This rule-making has some similarities with the ECI, even though in the US a more individual approach is adopted. As such a provision already existed in the US, it might have inspired the EU to establish a similar one. Both processes allow direct democracy and the involvement of the public in the rule-making process, creating a direct dialogue between the government and the public. Second, institutions in the EU and the US have provided momentum to enhance the accommodation of consumer preferences. In the EU, the 2010 GM Crop Cultivation Proposal from the Commission allows Member States to restrict or prohibit GMO cultivation based on health and socio-economic considerations. Such a proposal could provide an opportunity for the public to be heard. In contrast, the US courts have shown willingness to listen to consumer preferences. In the 2010 Boggs case, the Court of Appeals 6th Circuit found that the Ohio ban at the heart of the case – which prohibited dairy processors from making claims about the absence of artificial hormones (growth hormones) in their milk products – breached dairy processors' First Amendment rights to free speech. Thus, consumers have an interest in knowing how their food was produced and manufacturers should be allowed to tell them.

Thwarting consumer choice: the case against mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods

This thin book—less than 70 pages of text—succinctly counters every argument made in favor of mandatory labeling of GM foods. Each of these arguments, including the ‘consumer’s right to know,’ enabling consumer choice, and public opinion is systematically analyzed and rebuked. The “consumer’s right to know” argument seems most compelling as, superficially, it seems a truism that people should have a right to know what they are buying. This point appears so self evident that many regulators and politicians around the globe assume it prima facie. However, delving past the surface and more deeply investigating typical market practices shows that this “right” is not upheld in the case of many, if not most, consumer products. There are innumerable examples in the market where consumers are not given full information on a product, apart from a general product description and nutritional composition. This is particularly true for ‘no-name’ products or generic brands. Consumers enjoy a reduced price, with perhaps some reduced quality (but still safe and within certain quality thresholds) in choosing such products, even when the label may only say, for example, “sliced carrots” or “pickled beets.” How many consumers feel the need to know the named varieties of wheat that went into the loaf of bread they are buying? In actuality, even manufacturers cannot answer such a question, as the bread is undoubtedly a composite of dozens of different wheat varieties grown by many different farmers. Specialty breads baked using specific wheat cultivars might seem an exception, but they are segregated products to meet a certain market segment, and they are more expensive than regular bread (which lacks wheat-variety labels).

Policy options for obesity in Europe: a comparison of public health specialists with other stakeholders

To explore policy options that public health specialists (PHS) consider appropriate for combating obesity in Europe, and compare their preferences with those of other stakeholders (non-PHS). Structured interviews using multicriteria mapping, a computer-based, decision-support tool. Nine European countries. A total of 189 stakeholders. Twenty-seven interviewees were PHS and non-PHS included food, sports and health sectors. A four-step approach was taken, i.e. selecting options, defining criteria, scoring options quantitatively and weighting the criteria to provide overall rankings of options. Interviews were recorded and transcribed to yield qualitative data. The PHS concur with other stakeholders interviewed, as all emphasised the importance of educational initiatives in combating obesity, followed by policies to improve community sports facilities, introduce mandatory food labelling and controlling food and drink advertising. Further analyses revealed several significant differences. The non-PHS from the private sector ranked institutional reforms favourably; the PHS from non-Mediterranean countries supported the option of medicines to prevent obesity; and those PHS from Mediterranean countries endorsed the use of activity monitoring devices such as pedometers. As far as appraisal criteria were concerned, PHS considered efficacy and the economic impact on the public sector to be the most important. There is clear consensus among PHS and other stakeholders concerning the need for a package of policy options, which suggests that European-wide implementation could be successful. However, it would be advisable to avoid more contentious policy options such as taxation until future changes in public opinion.