The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
While the F.D.A.’s stance on labeling — it is not mandating disclosure of genetically modified ingredients — has not changed despite intense pressure from both sides of the issue, it has added a bit of confusion to the mix for consumers and for those companies that are voluntarily including more information on their packaging.
For starters, the F.D.A. does not favor the most commonly used term, non-G.M.O., which hundreds of companies plaster on tens of thousands of products on grocery store shelves.
Short for “genetically modified organism,” G.M.O. conveys an overly broad and inaccurate meaning when applied to food products, the agency said.
“Most foods do not contain entire organisms,” the F.D.A. noted.
Rather, the agency would prefer labels that say something like “Not bioengineered” or “This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered.”
Whether any food companies will adopt this language, or begin using nongenetically engineered foods rather than non-G.M.O., is unknown at this point….
“F.D.A. considers the term ‘genetic modification’ to be a much broader term that encompasses other means of altering the genome of an organism including selective breeding, and lab-based in vitro methods,” the agency said in its announcement….
Nonetheless, given the agency’s definition of genetic modification, non-G.M.O labeling on thousands of products now in stores would technically be false because they contain plants genetically modified over centuries through hybridization and other conventional breeding techniques.
Read full, original post: F.D.A. Takes Issue With the Term ‘Non-G.M.O.’