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
May 30, 2026 2:07 AM

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
Acton wins third Templeton Freedom award
The Acton Institute won first place in the Free Market Solutions to Poverty category in the 2007 Templeton Freedom petition. The award, managed by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, recognized Acton for its use of the “power of the popular media to mon beliefs about how to alleviate poverty.” Using the tagline, “Don’t Just Care, Think!,” the Acton project used documentaries, short films, public service announcements, print ads, and other educational materials to make the case that good intentions alone...
Turnabout is fair play?
The nation which hosted a large conference ing Holocaust deniers last year is now full of righteous indignation over historical inaccuracies in the film ‘300’. As Azadeh Moaveni reports from her daily travels in Tehran, “Iranians buzzed with resentment at the film’s depictions of Persians, adamant that the movie was secretly funded by the U.S. government to prepare Americans for going to war against Iran.” (HT: Disorganizational Behavior) No word yet on whether the Athenians are upset over being called...
Orestes Brownson revisited
John Henry Newman called him “by far the greatest thinker America has ever produced,” but I venture to say very few Americans have ever heard of Orestes Brownson. (Acton devotees, of course, are unusually well informed and have seen him featured among our “Liberal Tradition” biographies.) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., recently deceased, wrote a biography of Brownson some seventy years ago, but there had been little interest in the nineteenth-century Catholic convert from transcendentalism since then—until recently. The unmistakable signs of...
Global warming and population control
From the “we had to destroy the village to save it” department, check out this item from the Huffington Post by Dave Johnson, “A Global Warming Suggestion: Fewer Babies.” It’s pretty indefatigable logic: if there are no people to be affected by environmental catastrophe, then the problem has been avoided. Johnson writes, “Yes, hundreds of millions of people will face water shortages and starvation by 2080 — but only if those hundreds of millions of people are alive in the...
‘Great Firewall’ not great enough
According to published reports, China is planning on adding new censorship regulations covering blogs and webcasts (HT). President Hu Jintao says the government needs to take these steps to “purify” the Internet, leading to “a more healthy and active Internet environment,” according to the Xinhua news agency. Estimates put the number of Internet police manning the “Great Firewall of China” at 30,000-40,000. To see if those cops are looking at a particular website, test it at GreatFirewallOfChina.org. You can also...
Evangelical environmentalism’s moral imperative
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I examine recent events surrounding the conflict amongst evangelicals over global warming political activism. In “Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative,” pare the shape of the argument to the debate over the last decade on the topic of poverty. In the same way that conservatives were accused of not caring for the poor because they opposed an expansive welfare state, critics of climate change politics are being portrayed as not caring for the environment. To the extent...
Private education and global health
Check out the links from this piece by Joe Knippenberg at No Left Turns, which make the case that “small-scale support for private slum schools—through scholarship programs, backing for school-voucher schemes, or subsidized microfinance—might do far more good than a big aid push directed at government-run education.” Combine that with the insights from this recent NBER paper, “The Effects of Education on Health,” which examines the “well known, large, and persistent association between education and health,” and you could reach...
A ‘Red-Letter’ hermeneutic
Speaking of a “red-letter hermeneutic,” for which I criticize Vince Isner of the National Council of Churches, Tony Campolo says that the new group of evangelical activists, who “transcend” partisan politics, has decided to go by the name of “Red-Letter Christians.” “By calling ourselves Red-Letter Christians, we are alluding to the fact that in several versions of the Bible, the words of Jesus are printed in red. In adopting this name we are saying that we mitted to living out...
Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments
Kevin noted earlier this week that the UK has issued a paper bill featuring Adam Smith. I also received notice this week that the Adam Smith Review is planning a conference in January of 2009, celebrating the semiquincentennial (250th) anniversary of the publication of Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. The conference announcement notes that scholarship has e to appreciate the importance of Smith’s moral philosophy for his overall intellectual project.” For more on just how Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments...
Adam Smith, the British Grant (or Jackson)
The title of this post is not intended to imply anything by way parison between Smith and the American gentlemen. It is only to report that the United Kingdom has launched a new 20£ note sporting the visage of the Father of Economics. Peter Heslam spins the news to good effect in a ment on Smith’s moral sensibility. To investigate that issue more thoroughly, see James Halteman’s 2003 article in the Journal of Markets & Morality. ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved