The Real Deal on GM Food Labeling The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began food labeling in the United States in 1938. It was an initial effort to protect public health through the transparency in food ingredients and their nutritional value. Today, with the emergence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) as food, another issue regarding labeling to champion consumer choice between GM and non-GM foods has been raised. But experiences of countries that adopted mandatory GMO labeling proved that it doesn’t provide the consumer with a wider array of choice. This brings us to the more compelling issues on nutrition and food safety that will affect the research and commercialization of other GM foods in the future. Countries in the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia and New Zealand have adapted mandatory GMO labeling. But after the 90’s GM products seemed to have vanished in the EU. It was also difficult to find GMO labeling in products in Japan while in Australia and New Zealand, there is not much choice at the retail level. What happened is that producers changed the formulation of their products in order to avoid GM foods thus, labeling provides processors’ choice— not necessarily consumer choice. Also, under mandatory labeling, the costs of segregation and testing will be paid partly by taxpayers and partly by GM producers and so, experimental studies have shown that consumers perceive GM labels as a negative signal, and therefore there will be lower expected market share of GM foods. If GMO labeling doesn’t serve its purpose, is there a need for it? Practically speaking, there is none since even before the concern is raised, a lot of GM foods, including those used as ingredients, have already proliferated the market. According to the FDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization. North American production of corn, soybeans and canola is now more than 50% with transgenic traits (herbicide tolerance or bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) resistance), while milk from the United States (US) is mostly produced with recombinant bovine somatatrophin (rBST), and meat is being produced with various biotechnologically-based growth hormones. GM canola, cottonseed, soy and corn are common ingredients in processed foods that approximately 75% of foods in the markets contain them. For nutrition issues, some GM foods are even more nourishing compared to traditional foods. GM Rice (golden rice) for example is fortified with beta-carotene (vitamin A) that is 20 times as much as previous varieties to address deficiencies. According to the World Health Organization, “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, the general population in the countries where they have been approved has showed no effects on human health as a result of the consumption of such foods.” Reiterating the stand aforementioned, there is no need for labeling GM foods, as it does not really promote consumer choice and GM foods don’t pose threats to human health. Valid concerns for GM foods such, as environmental impact isn’t really answered by labeling GM foods. Those issues should be addressed in a different field of media, not in the market because the real issue for food labeling is the nutritive content and safety for human consumption, all of which are passed by GM foods.