POSTED BY Kayla Morency
In the 1970’s, biologists began experimenting with genetics and biotechnology, which ultimately resulted in genetically engineered DNA. This new process involved the crossbreeding of various animal, plant, viral, and bacterial genes, which would not naturally occur in the environment. In fact, the first patented genetically modified organism (GMO) was used by General Electric to consume oil in the event of large spills. However, only a few individuals ever imagined that GMOs would later become a common ingredient in most food products, and by the late twentieth century, the genetically modified food crop began to appear on grocery store shelves. These genetically modified food crops became increasingly popular in the marketplace, because the GMO capabilities provide accelerated growth rates, increased resistance to pathogens, and longer shelf lives. Although this new food source has become a common ingredient in most processed foods, the scientific community and the public are becoming increasingly concerned about the health consequences this phenomenon poses. However, unlike the European Union, which has taken a more skeptical approach to this technology, the U.S. remains one of the few industrialized nations that does not require GMO labeling of consumer goods. Nevertheless, the U.S. is starting to see the people mobilize and demand that they be fully informed on the products they are purchasing and consuming.
Even though the U.S. is starting to see a shift in public attitudes away from consumer ignorance towards consumer awareness, there has not been any significant progress requiring GMO products be labeled as such. There has been very limited legislative action taken, and although several states are in the process of considering GMO labeling bills, individuals are finding other ways to demand government action.
Recently, a federal consumer fraud class action suit was filed against one of the largest processed food manufacturers, Frito-Lay. Several purchasers of Frito-Lay products allege that the company failed to provide truthful and accurate information by using GMO ingredients under the guise “All Natural.” While the company pledged that their products contained all natural ingredients, it failed to acknowledge that the products also contained genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy. As a result, consumers contend that Frito-Lay violated state and several federal fraud and consumer deception laws. Although Frito-Lay remains a subsidiary of PepsiCo, another leading manufacturer of processed foods, the class action suit has been dismissed with respect to the parent company, because there was no evidence to suggest it participated in the advertising campaign; meanwhile, Frito-Lay will be compelled to defend against the use of GMO products. Even though PepsiCo uses genetically modified sweeteners in its products, unlike Frito-Lay, it adhered to existing U.S. policies by simply not labeling them.
As the political arena currently stands, there are a number of potential implications that this suit may have on the future of the food industry. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to clearly define the term “natural” when incorporated into food labels. Therefore, many individuals are hopeful that this suit and others pending will put enough pressure on the FDA to address this largely contested issue. In addition, advocacy groups, such as the Non-GMO Project and the Right to Know GMO, continue to generate public concern among consumers through advertising campaigns and mobilize voters in support of over a dozen pending mandatory GMO labeling statutes. Many are hopeful that consumer pressure, even in the form of litigation, will motivate legislatures to pass mandatory GMO labeling statutes, making these consumer fraud suits obsolete. However, until then, support for mandatory labeling statutes and boycotts of non-GMO products appears to be on the rise.
