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
Jun 12, 2026 5:18 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
How Conservatives Fight Poverty
At Public Discourse, Ryan T. Anderson reviews Lawrence Mead’s From Prophecy to Charity: How to Help the Poor: The loudest voices in our national debates about political economy tend to be libertarians and social welfare statists. To our detriment, most public policy discussions are filtered through these two lenses. At the same time, we tend to conflate the policy issues facing our nation as if they were one and the same. But consider the range of America’s political-economic challenges: How...
Report: Acton Institute raises local profile with move into new building
The Grand Rapids Press has a story today about the Acton Institute’s plans to move into new office space in the heart of the city. Stay tuned to the PowerBlog for exciting updates in the days and weeks ahead about the move. GRAND RAPIDS – The Acton Institute, a conservative think tank dedicated to blending Christian doctrine and free market economics, may be better known on the international stage than in its home town. That may change soon. The 22-year-old...
Creeping Crony Corporatism
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Corrupted Capitalism and the Housing Crisis,” I contend we need to add some categories to our thinking about political economy. In this case, the idea of “corporatism” helps understand a good deal of what we see in the American system today. Adding corporatism to our quiver helps us to make some more nuanced distinctions than simple “socialism” and “capitalism” allow. Take, for instance, Mitt Romney’s contention this week while campaigning in Michigan that the bailouts...
The End of Secularism and the HHS Mandate
The primary point of my first book, The End of Secularism, was to demonstrate that secularism doesn’t do what it claims to do, which is to solve the problem of religious difference. As I look at the administration’s attempt to mandate that religious employers pay for contraceptive products, I see that they have confirmed one of my charges in the book. I wrote that secularists claim that they are occupying a neutral position in the public square, but in reality...
Befuddled Bureaucrats on the Bayou
I’ve tried to stay on top of the federal government’s response to natural disasters here at Acton. I’ve written a number mentaries, blog posts, and a story in Religion & Liberty covering the issue. “Spiritual Labor and the Big Spill” specifically addressed the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. For extensive background on this short clip of Bobby Jindal at CPAC 2012, see my post “Bobby Jindal on Centralized Disaster Response.” ...
The “Right to Be Insured” Trumps Religious Liberty?
New York pundit Al Sharpton and California Senator Barbara Boxer agree: The “right” to insurance paid for by an employer trumps freedom of conscience and religion. Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured. On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced...
Religious Liberty or Government Tolerance?
Al Mohler absolutely dismantles Nicholas Kristof in this new piece. The cause of this skewering? Kristof’s “Beyond Pelvic Politics” column in The New York Times. Mohler notes, After asking his most pressing question, “After all, do we really want to make modations across the range of faith?,” he makes this amazing statement: “The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and modate them where we can.” That sentence caught the immediate attention of many....
Welcome to the PowerBlog, Joe Carter
When we launched the PowerBlog in 2005, we had little idea that it would grow into one of the Acton Institute’s most popular and munications channels. Nearly 4,000 posts, and ments later, the PowerBlog is still going strong. And for that, we heartily thank our many readers, contributors menters. Now we have for the first time a dedicated editor to help sustain and grow the blog for the advancement of the “free and virtuous society.” Veteran journalist Joe Carter is...
Politicians and the Pursuit of Happiness
In this week’s Acton Commentary I conclude, “The American people do not need politicians to tell them what happiness is and how it should be pursued.” I admit that I didn’t have this quote in mind (or I would have used it!), but Art Carden (follow him here and read him here) notes the following from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely...
Subsidiarity vs. Soft Totalitarianism
While the recent contraceptive mandate controversy has exposed the Obama Administration’s disregard for religious freedoms, it has also reveled their natural disdain for subsidiarity. As George Weigel notes, this incident tells us “something very important, and very disturbing, about the cast of mind in the Executive Branch.” It is no exaggeration to describe that cast of mind as “soft totalitarianism”: an effort to eliminate the vital role in health care, education and social service played by the institutions of civil...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved