[A] new study on GMO labeling shows that most people would not view a GMO label as a warning to avoid eating products containing genetically modified ingredients, according to a news release issued by the University of Vermont on July 27.
Jane Kolodinsky, a professor who authored the study and chair of the Department of Community Development and Applied Economics at the University of Vermont, drew from five years of data from statewide surveys about consumer opinions on GMO labeling. The surveys focused on the relationship between whether the respondent opposed the commercial use of GMOs, and whether or not they believed products containing GMOs should be labeled.
The study found that 93 percent of respondents were in favor of GMO labeling laws, and 60 percent of respondents were opposed to the use of genetically modified ingredients in commercial products. There was no evidence to suggest that those who were in favor of a GMO labeling law were no more likely to oppose the commercial use of GMOs than those who did not, however.
“When you look at consumer opposition to the use of GM technologies in food and account for the label, we found that overall the label has no direct impact on opposition. And it increased support for GM in some demographic groups,” Kolodinsky said.
The study comes at a time when GMO labeling is a hot-button issue in Vermont. At a concert in Essex Junction, Canadian rock star Neil Young announced that he would make a $100,000 donation to the Vermont Food Fight Fund, established to defend Act 120 – Vermont’s GMO labeling law – from opponents who wish to see it overturned in court.
Meanwhile, Vermont senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has spearheaded legislation in the Senate which would allow Vermont to require manufacturers to list genetically modified ingredients on food labels.
Vermont’s GMO labeling law, Act 120 has been challenged in court by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other food industry trade groups, who say the bill is unconstitutional and a violation of free speech.
“The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly ‘governmental’ interest, not just a political one,” the Grocery Manufacturers Association says on its website.
The organization argues that GMO labeling laws are neither comprehensive enough to achieve their goal of greater transparency in the food industry, nor that scientific research has shown any negative health effects that have resulted from consuming genetically modified foods.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate is considering the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill which, if passed, will nullify Vermont’s Act 120.
“Proponents of the U.S. Senate-bound bill, which if enacted would nullify Vermont’s GMO labeling law that has yet to take effect, argue that mandating labels on foods containing GMOs is misleading, because it suggests to consumers that GMOs are somehow risky to eat,” reads the UVM news release.
But Kolodinsky’s findings indicate that most people who support GMO labeling laws do so out of a desire to make an informed decision about what they’re eating, rather than out of concern that GMOs are dangerous.
“This study adds to the GM labeling evidence by showing that, in the only U.S. state that has passed a mandatory positive GM labeling law, the label will not act as a ‘warning label.’ When only the label is considered, it has no impact on consumer opposition. And there is some evidence that the label will increase consumer confidence in GM technology among certain groups,” she said.
