Long-standing tenets of US food labelling philosophy, established in law and upheld by federal regulators for generations, are under siege on a multitude of fronts. A pending requirement to label several foods according to country of origin and proposals to mandate labelling of biotechnology-derived foods are just two issues commanding headlines in US media, reports James C. Webster.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
For more than half a century, labelling policy in general has followed the dictates of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1947. Regulations based on the law are clear: only “material facts with regard to consequences” and “material facts with regard to representation” may be required on the label – information essential to prevent consumer deception and enforce consumer protection.
But regulatory agencies including the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (which enforces different but similar laws) lack authority to require labels to carry information that is merely interesting or even informative or that simply satisfies consumers’ curiosity.
Is it really about the consumer’s ‘right to know’?
Mandatory country-of-origin labelling for meat, fish, peanuts, fruits and vegetables – scheduled to have effect from September 2004 – and proposed legislation to require labels to disclose biotech content would depart from the long-standing policies.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataAdvocates of both schemes appear motivated by more than a desire to guarantee the consumer’s ‘right to know’. Producers of beef cattle, US-raised catfish and produce who have been among the strongest proponents of national labelling have said clearly they hope that such information will induce consumers to buy US-grown products.
“Green” groups who have advocated the requirement to label genetically modified food often concede their goal is to end the use of biotechnology in food.
Debate over mandatory food labelling has become “difficult, highly emotional and highly subjective,” says Dr Rhona Applebaum, the executive vice president and top scientist of the US National Food Processors Association. NFPA regularly opposes mandating labels with information it considers not material.
Labelling of irradiated food “improper” – NFPA
While the food industry generally accepts the requirements to disclose the nutritional content of food or ingredients such as peanuts that may be allergenic, NFPA believes mandatory labelling of irradiated food is improper. Food irradiation is a process and does not produce adverse consequences, Applebaum points out, and it should not require disclosure on the label.
In the case of biotechnology, she adds, because biotech food ingredients are not materially different from conventional foods, genetic modification need not be labelled. The courts have upheld the industry’s and FDA’s opinion; in a Vermont case, the US Court of Appeals ruled that to require labelling of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin would violate a company’s First Amendment rights. The court held that consumer curiosity alone is not a strong enough state interest to justify the requirement.
From various interest groups, several other proposals have received less attention: some have suggested labelling products prone to Listeria monocytogenes, countered by those who say adequate risk information can be disseminated through other channels to those most at risk. Some organic marketers would like to claim health benefits because of the production method; others say no, it has to be proven content.
Do consumers care where their food comes from?
Meat companies, food retailers who advocate the repeal of the pending country-of-origin law argue that it would be unnecessarily costly and that voluntary labelling would fulfil the need if the market demanded it. “Consumers might not care where their food comes from,” notes a recent USDA analysis. “If country of origin does not influence demand, there is no incentive to label country of origin … domestic beef and lamb producers may not be able to acquire a competitive advantage over importers by alerting consumers to country of origin. Grocers or meatpackers who did provide country of origin labels would incur labelling costs but receive no benefits.”
Some argue that origin does not matter to US consumers. A fastfood hamburger could include lettuce and tomato from Mexico, a bun made from Canadian wheat and a meat patty of lean meat from Australia and fat trimmings from cattle born in Canada and fed and slaughtered in the US.
“A label will not always influence demand enough to make it worth the cost,” the USDA study said. “Market behaviour suggests that the cost of country of origin labels for beef and lamb are greater than the benefits … any proposed government intervention in labelling decisions ought to arise from a demonstrated market failure.”
“Even if labels had the effect domestic producers desire, and if imports were produced under weaker pesticide, environmental and worker safety laws, labels would not solve the problems cited by the livestock producers,” says USDA.
Persuading the consumer of product integrity
Where biotech labelling is concerned, some private parties would incur numerous costs and some would forego the benefits of biotech farming – reduced chemical use, less harmful chemical use, reduced tillage and labour time, less production and financial risk and in some cases increased yields. Then there are the costs of keeping non-biotech commodities and food products separate from biotech foods.
Another set of costs concerns convincing manufacturers and consumers that the product truly is non-biotech. Products can be tested or a system of identify preservation can be adopted in which producers attest to the integrity of the product.
However, USDA also pointed out benefits from non-biotech labelling: access to other countries’ markets where biotech products are banned; non-biotech labelling can be touted as providing safety or environmental leadership; and so far, the biotech food market is unstable and market signals are difficult to decipher. Some firms which find benefits outweigh costs will tailor production to benefit from niche markets and potential price premiums for non-biotech food. But for other companies, benefits of lower production costs of biotech varieties and a bulk production and marketing system will outweigh benefits of the non-biotech label.
USDA accused of playing unfairly
Nearly one year after enactment of the national labelling section of the 2002 farm bill and five months after USDA proposed guidelines for voluntary labelling, the controversy has not abated. Twelve US Senators have complained that USDA has not been acting fairly because its officials appeared to have been working only with opponents to implement the labelling law.
USDA’s estimate that mandatory labelling would cost the industry US$2bn was, to the 12 US Senators, “an indefensible exaggeration.” But the Food Marketing Institute, the trade association representing food retailers, said the estimate was too low because it failed to account for many costs.
