Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What You Should Know About GMOs and Mandatory Food Labeling
Explainer: What You Should Know About GMOs and Mandatory Food Labeling
Mar 9, 2026 1:19 PM

Last year, the House passed a bill to preempt states from imposing mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food (GMOs). But as Daren Bakst notes, “While it looked like the Senate was going to follow suit, in the last minute, the new Senate bill would actually effectively mandate the labeling of genetically engineered food.”

“In the Senate bill, there would be a national mandatory labeling requirement unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines that there has been substantial participation by labeled foods in voluntary labeling,” says Bakst. “The Secretary has to develop regulations to clarify the process, but there has to be at least 70 percent substantial participation after two years.”

Here is what you should know about GMOs and GMO food labeling:

What are genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms (i.e. plants, animals, or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural bination. The technology used for GMOs is sometimes called “modern biotechnology,” “gene technology,” or “genetic engineering.” The process allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using genetically modified organisms are often referred to as genetically modified (GM) foods or GMO foods.

Why are GM foods produced?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), GM foods are developed “because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both.”

Which plants are genetically modified?

The mon genetically modified plants are corn, canola, soybean and cotton. Based on USDA survey data, the adoption of genetically modified crops in 2015 was: soybeans, 94 percent of US crops; cotton, 94 percent, corn 92 percent.

Which foods are made from genetically engineered plants?

According to the FDA, the majority of genetically engineered plants are typically used to make ingredients that are then used in other food products. Such ingredients include “cornstarch in soups and sauces, corn syrup as a general purpose sweetener, and cottonseed oil, canola oil, and soybean oil in mayonnaise, salad dressings, cereals, breads, and snack foods.”

Why do some people oppose GMOS?

GMO critics claim that foods made from GMO crops — which they often refer to as“Frankenfoods” — can cause environmental damage and health problems for consumers.

“The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century,” says the Center for Food Safety. The Non-GMO Project says that, “Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.”

The Non-GMO project also claims GMO crops pose a threat to farmers:

Because GMOs are novel life forms, panies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, panies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods and food products from plant sources including food from genetically engineered plants. Foods from genetically engineered plants must meet the same requirements, including safety requirements, as foods from traditionally bred plants. The FDA has found that GMO foods are “generally as nutritious as foods parable traditionally bred plants.”

The European Union (EU) conducted a lengthy study on the biosafety of GMOs and found:

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

Additionally, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other organizations have examined the evidence e to the same conclusion about the safety of GMOs.

Do GMO foods need to be labeled?

Because some consumer interests are interested in whether food ingredients are derived from genetically engineered plants, some manufacturers choose to voluntarily label their foods as containing or not containing GMO-based ingredients.

However, many businesses, non-profits, and scientific organization oppose mandated labeling. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science says:

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop monly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous.

[. . .]

It is the long-standing policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that special labeling of a food is required if the absence of the information provided poses a special health or environmental risk. The FDA does not require labeling of a food based on the specific genetic modification procedure used in the development of its input crops. Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Competitive taxing
In this season of taxation, it is refreshing to consider strategies for lowering taxes and making governments more efficient. London’s Institute of Economic Affairs recently published a fascinating monograph by Richard Teather, The Benefits of Tax Competition. It’s available for download here. Teather examines from various angles the issue of petition among nations—that is, the practice of national governments’ lowering taxes for the purpose of attracting panies and fostering and retaining domestic ones. He reviews the relevant existing research, analyzes...
Aid does not equal growth
The traditional formula for understanding the relationship between the developed and the developing world is the following: Aid = Economic Growth. That is, foreign aid spurs economic development in poorer nations. A new study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research challenges this wisdom, however. “Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really Show?” by Raghuram G. Rajan and Arvind Subramanian shows that “regardless of the situation — for example, in countries that have adopted sound economic policies...
Who argues that the environment doesn’t matter?
The Chicago Tribune has a story about the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) launched February 8th. (See my initial response here.) Most reports of this story have been somewhat fair. But the Chicago Tribune story takes an unjustified swipe at evangelicals who disagree with the ECI statement. The reporter, Frank James, describes the disagreement among evangelical Christians this way: But environmental issues have proved divisive within the body of believers who identify themselves as evangelicals. Some who believe the world is...
Evangelicals and global warming
After much whispering and pre-publicity, a group of 86 evangelical leaders has announced their support for what The New York Times calls “a major initiative to fight global warming.” As part of the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” they are calling for “federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through ‘cost-effective, market-based mechanisms.'” (For a response from another group of evangelical leaders, go to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.) I have great respect for the supporters of this initiative, and...
Schelling on species extinction
Following the recent discovery of new species and a reports of a “lost world,” a primitive pristine paradise on the Indonesian island of Papua, I thought I’d pass along some thoughts of F. W. J. Schelling, the 19th century philosopher and contemporary of G. W. F. Hegel and Friedrich Schleiermacher, who was one of the last great German idealists. German idealism in general, and Schelling’s philosophy in particular, have exercised great influence down into contemporary theology, having effected, among others,...
A Tocquevillian in the Vatican
With the publication of Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI is warning that an passing government would be unable to provide the one thing that people really need — loving, personal concern. Sam Gregg sees parallels between Benedict’s new encyclical and Tocqueville’s 19th century understanding of the autonomous, social associations that gave America its dynamic character and limited government power. Read the mentary here. ...
What would Lord Acton say?
Writing in Canada’s Macleans magazine, Mark Steyn modifies a famous saying of our namesake: As Lord Acton almost said, all power corrupts but Liberal power corrupts very liberally. Since it’s a Canadian publication, the capital “L” refers to the party that was booted out of power in the recent elections. The whole piece is an interesting look at the legacy of the British empire and can be read here. ...
‘With God’s help, we can stop global warming’
A few others have addressed this issue in previous posts, but I wanted to jump in with my two cents. Yesterday’s New York Times notes that a group of evangelical leaders have entered the debate over climate change: Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”...
A love/hate relationship with science
One aspect of the evangelical involvement in debates over global warming and climate change that has intriqued me has been what I deem to be a rather large blind spot about the relation of religious conservatives to science. By this I mean that if there is any group of people who ought to understand the rigidity of scientific dogma, it should be evangelical Christians. Given the treatment of their views in debates about evolution and more recently “intelligent design,” it...
The state of American science and culture, cont’d.
Following Michael Miller’s recent Acton Commentary, “Why Johnny Can’t Compete with Sanjay”, and the ments, two of America’s best mentators have also weighed in on the subject. First there’s Charles Krauthammer’s Time article, arguing that America is doing fine, partly as a result of less dependence on government-funded research. Then Michael ments on Krauthammer’s argument, along with a request for more information on the role of the private sector in research. Any takers? ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved