LONDON -- It seems simple enough: Let consumers know when they're buying bioengineered food by requiring a label. It's an idea being promoted heavily in the U.S. by groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and even by some members of Congress.
But a trip up and down the supermarket aisles of Britain, which has required such labeling since March, shows the new law hasn't exactly made things easier for discerning shoppers. Rather, it has spawned a bewildering array of marketing claims, counterclaims and outright contradictions that only a food scientist possibly could unravel.
Take cheese. One supermarket chain here labels its cheese as being "made using genetic modification," the European catchword for bioengineering. But other supermarket chains, whose cheese is made exactly the same way, haven't changed their labels, saying the cheese itself contains no genetically modified ingredients.
Then there's Birds Eye frozen beef burgers. The label on a box purchased last week states that one ingredient, soya protein, is "produced from genetically modified soya." But a spokesman for maker Unilever PLC insists that the soya isn't genetically modified. The company has reformulated the product, he explains, but has yet to replace the box.
Yes or No?
Confused yet? Then scan over the small print on a Haagen-Dazs chocolate-covered ice-cream bar. No genetically modified ingredients listed there. But consumers who question the company about it are sent a letter stating that the bar's chocolate coatings, in fact, contain soya oil that "may have been derived from genetically modified soya, but it is identical to any other soya oil and therefore does not contain any genetically modified material." The letter adds, "We are, however, investigating whether there are suitable alternative oils."
All of this may seem puzzling to American shoppers, who so far aren't up in arms over whether the food they buy includes ingredients that have been tinkered with in a laboratory. After all, that's already the case with many U.S. products. But European consumers, who have lived through such recent food scares as beef linked to "mad cow" disease, salmonella-contaminated eggs and dioxintainted animal feed, are taking no chances, even though there's no proof that bioengineered foods pose any health risks.
Monster Mash
The result has been a biotech backlash that at times borders on hysteria. In Britain, tabloid newspapers routinely refer to genetically modified products as "Frankenstein food." One prisoner even went on a hunger strike demanding that no genetically modified food be served to inmates.
Critics say bioengineered foods offer consumers no obvious benefit and that despite industry and government assurances, not enough research has been done to assure they are safe. Environmental groups have expressed concern that genetically modified plants could have unintended side effects, including killing beneficial insects and, through the spread of pollen, promoting growth of herbicide-resistant "super weeds" and antibiotic-resistant "super bugs." Others fear genetically modified foods could cause dangerous allergic reactions in some people.
In response to widespread consumer outcry, the European Union last year approved legislation that required its 15 member countries to begin labeling all foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, namely corn and soybean in which new genes have been added to provide traits such as insect resistance.
American Reverberations
While no such plans have been announced in the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration said last week that it plans hearings around the country this fall to gauge public opinion on the issue. Already, several American health-food companies have begun slapping labels on their products declaring that they contain no genetically modified ingredients.
But before America leaps into mandatory labeling, the government, retailers and consumer groups might want to take a look at the far-reaching impact such a law has had in Britain.
When the European Union introduced its legislation last year, Britain's agriculture minister called it "a triumph for consumer rights to better information." Britain went on to enact the toughest labeling standards in Europe, requiring even restaurants, caterers and bakers to list genetically modified ingredients. Violations are punishable by fines of as much as $8,400, and the government says it intends to conduct surveillance, including independent lab testing.
"This is not a health issue in any way," says J. R. Bell, head of the government's additives and novel-foods division, adding that his ministry believes the latest bioengineered products are safe. "This is a question of choice, of consumer choice."
But, in fact, as a direct result of the labeling law, there's hardly any choice now at all. That's because Britain's new law sparked a mad rush by manufacturers, retailers and restaurant chains to rid their products of any genetically modified ingredients so they wouldn't have to alter their labels and risk losing sales. Even some pet-food manufacturers are claiming their products contain no genetically modified ingredients.
Among the thousands of products sold in Britain that now claim not to contain any genetically modified ingredients are Pillsbury UK Ltd.'s Green Giant vegetables and Old El Paso Mexican food, Kellogg cereals and Unilever's Van den Bergh Foods Beanfeast line. A spokesman for McDonald's Restaurants Ltd., which operates 1,000 restaurants in the United Kingdom, says, "We do not use any genetically modified products or ingredients that contain genetically modified material." He adds, however, that some ingredients, such as soya oil used in hamburger buns, "could have come from a source which itself is genetically modified at some point."
The rush to keep products from being branded as bioengineered is hardly surprising. When J. Sainsbury PLC, a supermarket chain, began selling a bioengineered tomato puree under its own brand in 1996, sales initially exceeded other, more expensive brands by 30%, though the product's label volunteered that it was genetically modified. But as the genetically modified controversy heated up, sales slowed and, by the end of last year, "absolutely fell through the floor," says Alison Austin, Sainsbury's environmental manager. The product has since been taken off the market by its creator and distributor, Zeneca Plant Science, a unit of AstraZeneca PLC.
New Recipes
Having gotten the message that consumers don't want bioengineered foods, Sainsbury's and other supermarket chains, as well as food manufacturers that sell in Britain, launched extensive, monthslong reviews of their product formulations. They began changing recipes to eliminate soya and corn derivatives and ordered their suppliers to find new sources of nonbioengineered raw materials in places such as South America and Asia.
"We poured over something like 5,000 ingredients ... and made changes to 1,800 recipes as part of this process," says Bob Mitchell, manager of food technical policy at Marks & Spencer PLC, which operates specialty food shops. "It was a colossal task."
Supermarkets soon began declaring in advertising that their own house brands, which in Britain can constitute more than half of all sales, no longer contained genetically modified ingredients.
But a close examination of stores' claims, based on interviews with supermarket executives, shows that one chain's definition of removing genetically modified ingredients isn't necessarily the same as another's.
Sainsbury's, for example, says on its Web site that it is "the first major U.K. supermarket to eliminate genetically modified ingredients from its own-brand products." Does that include food additives, such as sweeteners and flavorings, which may be genetically modified? Alison Austin, the company's environmental manager, replies, "To be honest, we have focused in on major ingredients" such as soya and maize proteins and oils, as well as lecithin, an emulsifier. As for other bioengineered ingredients, she says, "It takes time for the supply chain to provide alternatives."
'We Mean Zero GM'
Tesco PLC, Britain's leading supermarket chain, says it makes no distinction between major and minor genetically modified ingredients. As a result, 150 of its house-brand products are still labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients. "When we say zero GM, we mean zero GM," says Simon Soffe, a Tesco spokesman.
Maybe so, but laboratories that test for genetically modified ingredients say it is almost impossible to guarantee that a product line contains absolutely no genetically modified ingredients. Many growers don't segregate bioengineered and nonbioengineered soybeans and corn. Moreover, genetically modified materials in highly processed additives or oils often can't be detected in testing. "If there's no way to test, then people are going to bend the rules and they're going to bend the truth," says Bruce Ferguson, president of EnviroLogix Inc., an environmental-testing company in Portland, Maine.
Some inconsistencies in supermarket claims can be attributed to the labeling law itself. At the moment, the European Union and British regulations require labeling only if genetically modified material is detectable in DNA or protein. Additives and flavorings are exempt.
Cheese-Making
That has led to some strange labeling dilemmas in items as simple as cheese. Traditionally, cheese was set using an enzyme called rennet, taken from the lining of calves' stomachs. But to appease vegetarians, many European cheese makers in recent years switched to an enzyme called chymosin that is produced from genetically modified bacteria.
There's no evidence that any genetically modified ingredient remains in the cheese after production. Still, one supermarket chain, Co-Op, decided to place labels on its cheese that say "made using genetic modification and so free from animal rennet." "It's a question of whether the retailer is honest or open in labeling it," says a Co-Op spokesman.
Meantime, Iceland, a small but scrappy convenience-store chain whose chairman coined the term "Frankenstein food," says it has switched to making its cheese with another enzyme that doesn't come from animals and isn't produced from genetically modified bacteria. "We've done them one better," says Bill Wadsworth, the chain's technical director.
European Union officials say they are hoping to clear up some of the confusion in the marketplace. Last week, a panel of government representatives voted to extend the labeling law to cover additives and flavorings, a change that is expected to take effect next year and could force many manufacturers and fast-food restaurants to either change recipes, switch suppliers or begin labeling.
Trace Amounts
The EU also decided to address the problem of products "contaminated" with trace amounts of genetically modified material despite the best intentions of manufacturers. In a controversial decision, the panel recommended that products don't require labeling if each of the ingredients contains 1% bioengineered material or less. Consumer groups had argued that the limit should be one-tenth of that.
In the future, the EU may also try to define when a retailer or manufacturer may claim that a product is "GM-free," a phrase that already has sprung up in some advertising and promotional material. Many retailers, such as Marks & Spencer, instead use the term "non-GM," which they insist is different. "We would never call it GM-free because you could never guarantee that," Mr. Mitchell says.
And thornier labeling issues loom. In their competitive frenzy, some British supermarkets have begun introducing raw and frozen chicken that they claim was raised on feed containing no genetically modified ingredients-even though there isn't evidence that bioengineered material ends up in the meat. To accomplish this, Iceland convenience stores say they now buy their chickens in Brazil, instead of Britain. Marks & Spencer says it is about to introduce a new line of free-range, non-genetically modified poultry, egg and pork products.
Sainsbury's has yet to join the non-genetically modified chicken and pork parade, but Mrs. Austin says it's probably "inevitable" and adds it may only be a first step. "We are utterly adamant that if you wish to claim you are GM-free, then you are ultimately going to have to go as far as GM-free veterinary medicines," she says.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.