President Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Stephen M. Hahn, will face questions this morning on many of the pressing health topics facing the nation when he appears tomorrow before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Members of the committee will likely ask about hot topics like vaping among youth, the opioid crisis, and persistent delays in approvals for drugs and medical devices.
No less crucial is the impact that proliferating misleading labels on food products is having on the American public and future of innovation. It may not drive scary headlines but it affects every person who shops at a grocery store and must be raised with Hahn.
There are misleading labels across several different industries. The dairy industry is struggling with decreasing milk consumption, as the majority of consumers mistakenly trust that alternative “milks,” like almond, coconut, or soy, have the same nutritional quality. The meat industry is in a similar position, attempting to explain to consumers that products labeled “beef” aren’t necessarily made from cows and don’t have the same nutritional benefits. The Real MEAT Act introduced in October proposes to fix that by putting “imitation” on, well, imitation meats.
The most egregious claim that’s used widely on food product labels, however, is “non-GMO” (genetically modified organism). Thousands of “non-GMO” labels are slapped on foods that could never be genetically engineered or for which there is no current GMO equivalent on the market. These labels exist for the sole purpose of stigmatizing biotechnology in the eyes of consumers without any supporting credible scientific evidence.
A recent survey by the International Food Information Council found that nearly half of consumers avoid GMOs, despite not knowing much about the technology. The belief gap between scientists and the public on GMO foods is wide. In 2015, the Pew Research Center found that nearly 90% of AAAS members (the world’s largest multidisciplinary scientific professional society) believe GMO foods are safe to consume, compared to only 37% of the general public.
These studies and many more like them reveal a troubling and growing trend that is happening across all sectors of the consumer food space. Despite every major regulatory, government and scientific society in the world (including FDA), affirming the safety of GMO foods, consumers are absorbing on a daily basis that these foods and incumbent technologies are to be feared and avoided. This is something that Hahn’s predecessor in the job, Scott Gottlieb, had been working to address.
“[It] actually may conflict with FDA guidance and regulation, if you put non-GMO labeling on something that couldn’t possibly be made with GMOs or there are no competing products in the market that have GMOs in them,” Gottlieb said Monday. “The problem is those kinds of things are confusing to consumers and exacerbate misguided concerns.”
As Trump’s nominee, Hahn must additionally keep in mind the instructions FDA was given in the June 11, 2019 Executive Order on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products. This order notes that to realize the potential benefits of biotechnology advances, the United States regulatory system “must both foster public confidence in biotechnology.”
Continuing to allow demonstrably false and misleading non-GMO labels to be used on food packaging undermines the public confidence in biotechnology and the FDA.
After finally passing the contentious National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard labeling law in 2016, Congress is likely tired of thinking about what should or should not be allowed or required on food packages. But the issue isn’t going to go away until the agency takes action to protect American consumers from false and misleading labeling.
Dr. Taylor C. Wallace is principal & CEO at the Think Healthy Group and an adjunct professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram: @DrTaylorWallace.
