A New Facelift for GMOs
Most adults can recall memories of sitting in elementary school classrooms, learning about the negative implications of GMOs: that they are bad for the environment, harmful for human health, and detrimental to the future of agriculture. They’ve gotten a bad rap for decades.
Starting on January 1, 2022, the USDA set a standard that genetically modified foods, previously referred to as GMOs, will now be referred to as “bioengineered.”
Despite causing potential confusion for consumers who may not be familiar with the new term, the decision was made “to establish a national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are or may be bioengineered,” according to the USDA.
Bioengineered foods are defined by the USDA as “a food that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro rDNA techniques and for which modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.”
The new federal standard requires that food manufacturers, importers, and grocery stores label the appropriate foods with a clear, easy-to-understand label.
The bioengineered food disclosure can be made in four ways:
- An on-package text, marketing it as “bioengineered food” or “contains a bioengineered food ingredient”
- The official bioengineered symbol, featuring illustrations of a bright sun and rows of thriving, beautiful crops
- A QR code that consumers can scan to access more information
- A phone number they can text to access more information with the message, “Text [command word] to [number] for bioengineered food information.”
Only one of these options is required to be utilized at a time.
By giving manufacturers the option to only include a QR code or phone number while disclosing important information on their packaging, consumers have to take active steps in order to find what ingredients are in their food. It also leaves out a key portion of the population that may not have access to a smartphone or reliable internet access, including marginalized groups such as the elderly or low-income.
Skeptics are concerned over the lack of transparency surrounding the switch in an already agro-illiterate society and argue that it gives these manufacturers a loophole that further misleads customers.
Whether GMOs are “good” or “bad”, this new facelift for genetically modified organisms could have harmful and confusing repercussions for consumers.
To read more articles on farming and food systems, check out some of Roxanne Christensen’s stories. This one about farming in a fiscally responsible way without choosing between love and money is my favorite.
