Stop Labeling Lies News - Stop Labeling Lies at St

The argument many activists use for the expansion of mandatory food labeling information is that consumers want and need more information in our complex modern age. New food products and new processes abound -- shouldn't companies be required to provide consumers with information to make decisions, especially about the new? This argument is currently being used by activists to press for mandatory labeling of food produced through biotechnology.

At first glance, that contention may sound plausible. Consumers do need and want product information. But what kind of information? How much? For whom? For what purpose? Based on what criteria? Selected and provided by whom? These are all valid questions that need to be answered before a mad gallop to mandate new label information tramples common sense. Labeling is supposed to provide information. Now, with a greater push for government-mandated labels, it seems to be a way of endorsing certain values, of favoring some cause.

In the food area, approaches to labeling can play a large role in consumers' perceptions and in their acceptance of those foods, particularly when the process used in the food production is new or the food itself is novel. Mandating that certain labeling information is needed because consumers want to know more about the food or its production presents the risk that the information will relate to some people's tastes and values rather than science.

Consumers evaluate many factors before deciding whether to buy a product --- past experience, recommendations from friends, reputation of both the producer and the seller. And, of course, information on labels can also be relevant.

To many consumers, one of the most important pieces of label information is the "brand name," that is, the name of the food producer that stands behind the product. The "branding" itself provides information that a certain quality level exists. And it is not a new concept. Craftsmen throughout history have carved their mark on furniture, musical instruments, clocks, and other products. Artists signed their names to their works to identify them as authentic creations of the "master" or his school.

Consumers, through experience, aided by advertising, ratings, or word-of-mouth recommendations, learn which brands consistently provide them with the quality they desire at the price they want to pay. Since that "branding" also can extend over numerous product lines, a poor quality level in one of a producer's products can spill over to another and hurt the total brand name, and hence sales. Food companies know that and thus make sure that their foods meet their standard across the board.

Besides "branding" their products, food producers, on a voluntary basis, provide information important to consumers, such as how to prepare the food properly. The 800-numbers for questions about the products are popular with consumers. In many cases, particularly with new products, companies' self-interest in selling their products drives them to tell consumers on labels and in advertising about the product's attributes. Some label information --- for example, the list of ingredients --- is required by federal agencies.

People have very different views about what information they want on food labels. Consumers, depending on prior knowledge and their own needs and values, may find some of the information more important to them than it would be for others. They search out information that they need or value, whether it relates to ingredients, safety, diet or nutrition, or warnings. Both the product and the process used to produce the food may be important to some people --- those who follow religious dietary codes or have other value-based preferences. Groups desiring specific label information relating to their tastes or values have worked with manufacturers to create specific labels and to certify certain products, for instance, kosher food.

In the private market, those requirements or preferences result in specialized companies producing food that satisfies those specialized values, and then labeling and marketing the food so that the process is clear. Thus, a company that wants to provide consumers with facts about production methods may do so, for example, in the case of organic agricultural methods or food that complies with religious codes. Producers identify and label the products that meet certain criteria, and consumers who want to purchase kosher food or organically grown food can readily find those products. In the private sector, those criteria don't have to be the same. For instance, one kosher certification label may have much stricter criteria than another. Those specialized products carry specialized information for people with special wants or needs.

Producers may also want to provide label information to address consumer concerns about food safety. For example, a company that produces frozen ground beef patties may want to let consumers know that their patties were "cold pasteurized" with irradiation to reduce significantly the incidence of E.coli and many other food-borne pathogens. Since scientific studies support those claims, companies may want to highlight the process in their product marketing. Some consumers concerned about food-borne diseases may be attracted to "cold pasteurized" foods, while others suspicious of new technology may avoid them.

Labeling of Irradiated Food. In contrast to the voluntary provision of information, almost invariably government- mandated wording on food labels, even when designed for informational purposes and not as warnings, shrieks "Stay away from this product!" Current federal government labeling requirements for irradiated foods mandate wording stating that the food has been irradiated, and require a symbol -- or radura -- to depict that fact. The irradiation label in this form only serves as a warning. It is likely that some consumers would be misled into thinking that food that has been treated with radiation is less safe or that it is radioactive. The wording may in fact cause some people to shy away from such foods in that belief and risk missing out on a critical way to protect themselves and their families from food-borne diseases.

The private market can likely find many innovative ways to promote irradiation as a positive good that enhances their food products. A government mandated "one size fits all" statement and logo gives less incentive to companies to more creatively promote the value of irradiation, especially if the "one size . . ." is perceived as somewhat alarming to consumers.

The Olestra Example: The case of the labeling of products containing olestra---a fat substitute approved for use in salty snacks --- provides a real-life example of how mandated information translates into a warning. The mandated label was not supposed to be a warning label but an informational one---to inform potential customers that some consumers may be more sensitive to non-absorption of olestra by the body and may experience unpleasant gastrointestinal effects. The alleged intent was to provide some consumers with information that would help them make a more informed decision about purchasing and using the product; it can be characterized as "Take care --- you may be especially sensitive to the fact that olestra is not digested by the body."

However, the "informational" label prescribed by the government goes far beyond that. The notice on snack foods with olestra tells people in graphic detail what some of the negative effects might be. Although technically an "information" notice and not a "warning" label, the label requires language that raises the specter of disgusting, distasteful, and disagreeable consequences of eating olestra snacks. The nature of the language thus raises an alarm, rather than just providing information.

The olestra label seems to apply a new principle to this new food. Many traditional foods have various impacts on some people or on some people some of the time. Drinking milk or eating dried fruit or fiber-enriched cereal can cause some people some distress sometimes. But it is not the usual practice to require those foods to have special label information. Yet special requirements were mandated for an innovative food, and those requirements were negative.

Government mandates for labels also often fail to consider the "broadcast" vs. "narrow" information issue. An information label is a "broadcast" approach --- it gives everyone the same information even though that information may be relevant or of interest to only certain people. Is that the best approach or would a more "narrow" approach be more effective?

For example, lactose intolerance is a condition affecting many people, usually not that seriously. Yet foods containing lactose do not carry a specific information label going to the general public that notes that fact or points out the risk/discomfort of lactose for those who are intolerant of that ingredient. Rather, the minority of people who are sensitive to lactose seek out lactose-free, acidophilus milk and other products.

An overload of mandatory label information can also "crowd out" essential information on food products. Too much "clutter" or "noise" on labels makes it more difficult for consumers to locate important facts about products. That "crowding out" problem in which mandates for prominent label information may obscure critical information can actually harm consumers in interfering with their ability to find that information. In the case of a person with an obesity problem, the caloric value may be more important, or, for those on sodium-restricted diets, that information would be more valuable.

In the case of many food products, critical information about food storage, how to cook the food properly, whether the food needs refrigeration after opening is less visible to consumers and thus may be overlooked. Yet lack of knowledge about proper cooking and storing can greatly increase the risks of food-borne diseases for many consumers. Too much information often means too little - in the sense that little information is read or important information is overlooked or cannot readily be found.

Research findings of a Consumer Labeling Initiative by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that very problem: Many consumers were not reading the mandated product labels for household insecticides and pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). And, when consumers did read the labels, they thought that labels on household cleaning products not regulated by FIFRA were easier to read and understand than those on FIFRA-regulated products. Consumers in the EPA's focus groups also wanted the mandated labels to use fewer technical words, even though "public interest groups" recommended that full chemical names and other technical terms be provided. Consumers appear to have more commonsense than their "consumer advocates."
As Judge Stephen Breyer noted in another context: "Who now reads the warnings on aspirin bottles, or the pharmaceutical drug warnings that run on, in tiny print, for several pages? Will a public that hears these warnings too often and too loudly begin too often to ignore them?" (Stephen Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 28). There is thus a downside to mandated information overload --- there is a risk.

There is also a risk that mandatory label information, especially for innovative food products, will be perceived as negative, especially when technical, little understood terms are used. The prevalence of negative terms for modern technological processes does not bode well for value-free mandated informational labeling of food produced by those processes. Rather, the words themselves to depict the processes would serve as warnings instead. The most prominent example of this would be foods produced by biotechnology.

Biotechnology is a modern technique that identifies and uses specific genes to modify plants, animals, and other organisms. As used in agriculture, biotechnology, because it is gene-specific, is a more precise technique than the conventional methods of cross-breeding and hybridization. Those older approaches, used almost since mankind began to cultivate crops and animals for food, attempted to enhance a desired trait or de-emphasize an undesirable one by cross-breeding. In early days, breeding techniques used wild species and bred them into cultivated species that had more desirable characteristics, for example, corn that grew larger or more evenly on the cob. Conventional cross-breeding can be inexact and may take lengthy periods of time for trial and error until a new plant exhibits the desired traits.

Modern biotechnology techniques, on the other hand, are targeted and fast, as scientists can insert specific genes that carry specific traits from one species to another.

In food production, biotechnology is currently being used to produce higher crop yields, by transferring genetic traits such as disease-resistance or pest-resistance into the plant itself. Crops are being bred to better resist droughts or floods or to grow in acidic or naturally toxic soils. The technique is also being used to enhance the nutrient levels of foods that are staples in many parts of the world, for instance, rice that is enhanced to produce high levels of Vitamin A, which could be used to correct a serious nutritional deficiency affecting millions of people and leading to blindness.

Currently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has policy guidelines about food product labeling. Those guidelines apply to foods and food ingredients, including those produced through use of biotechnology. New foods that contain a new substance or an allergen that is new to that food, or exhibit a different level of certain dietary nutrients or increased toxins are required to be tested, sometimes extensively, before being marketed. If a product in one of those categories is approved by the FDA, that food would also have to be labeled with information about the food's content and characteristics. However, if a peach is a peach is a peach - whether produced through conventional breeding techniques or through biotechnology, no special label is required.

It is interesting to note that when consumers have been polled about whether genetically modified food should be labeled, a majority says "yes." A consumer survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) also produced that result. However, when the IFIC survey explained the FDA's policy guidelines on labeling, most consumers thought that those guidelines applied to foods produced through biotechnology made sense.

Critical public health benefits that biotechnology can offer could be set back rather than advanced through a restrictive approach to labeling information. The human and environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnology could be dramatic and widespread.

Higher crop yields per acre can not only provide larger food output to feed the world's hungry, but also mean that less land would have to be used for farming, thus helping to preserve forests. The possible reduced use of pesticides can enhance the environment. The ability to grow crops in previously barren areas can help keep pace with the needs of growing populations, especially in developing countries. Enhanced nutritional levels of staple crops can prevent diseases that are life-threatening or debilitating.

Currently, consumers know little about those benefits. Activist groups that are campaigning against this new technology in countries across the world ignore the positive and instead promote images of fear and dread to depict the products of biotechnology. Some, such as Great Britain's Prince Charles, call biotech unethical and immoral. In parts of Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, several radical groups have been burning test fields of genetically modified crops in protest. The small farmers affected by this destruction don't think those lawless gestures should be tolerated. They see themselves as part of the future of farming.

The anti-technology activists have been particularly vocal on the need for mandatory labeling of food produced through biotechnology. Under the mantra of "consumer choice" and consumers' "right to know," they want governments to mandate that all foods even with traces of genetically modified ingredients be labeled. Yet, it is more a matter of "some consumers wanting to know." Process information, such as how a food is produced, does not add any essential information for consumers. It may be something some people want to know --- some consumers may be curious about learning about the process --- but satisfying curiosity at the expense of critical information should not be the purpose of mandated labeling. That, however, is the type of situation that private markets can better address by providing truthful information about biotechnology's benefits through producers' claims on labels and through advertising.

"Organic" consumers and "organic" farmers, such as Prince Charles, are among some of the groups that are pushing for strict labeling of foods produced by biotechnology. It is ironic that the organic movement, in marketing and promoting their foodstuff, show that private markets provide consumers with information relating to values and choices. Organic producers often hawk their products as being "produced without genetic engineering." Thus, consumers who want such foods can readily locate them. Some consumers, many non-Jewish, are also turning to kosher foods because they want alternative foods and look to the kosher certification as a sign of quality.

Activists' push to label genetically modified foods would extend to those with even a trace of gene-spliced material. That approach will lead policy makers down a road to ridiculousness. In Germany, for example, regulators are pondering and meditating about whether a product that is washed in a bowl in which genetically modified food was put previously would have to be labeled. Where will that sort of approach lead --- to witches reading entrails?

Over the last several decades, government has played an increasingly larger role in determining what information should be displayed on labels. To date, those mandates have been restricted to information of a scientific, objective nature. It would clearly be inappropriate for government agencies to make judgments on a product's adherence to a religious code; it would also be inappropriate to mandate label information that is based on tastes or values. This distinction between objective and value-based information is critical.

Now, however, some groups would claim for their values a special privilege. Groups opposed to biotechnology, food irradiation, and other modern food technologies seek special privileges and demand that their preferences should be observed on all products.

When government decides to mandate food labeling that relates to people's curiosity, their values, their wants, and their perceptions, it is taking on a role that will lead to more, rather than less misinformation, a "crowding out" of essential information, information overload, and warnings without cause. Proposals to require labeling of foods produced through biotechnology would likely cause some consumers to be misled into thinking that the food is less safe. Mandatory labeling that may be perceived as unnecessarily alarming can stand in the way of consumer acceptance of this process that could be invaluable in improving the world's food supply.

This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.