Deceptive Food Labeling
If you have ever looked at products at a grocery store, you have seen the little labels. The ones that say “organic,” “non-GMO,” and “gluten-free,” among others. Food products often have false claims printed on their labels, and consumers often do not know that these claims are untrue or misleading. I strongly dislike buying products with these labels, but they are becoming much more difficult to actively avoid, although I do try to purchase more products that do not have these labels.
Products that are labeled “organic” often claim that they are all-natural, free of pesticides, or, in the case of milk, come from cows that are treated more humanely (Henry 2018). However, conventional and organic products both use pesticides (Marcone 2019). One pesticide that organic farmers use, copper sulfate, a possible carcinogen, was to be banned by the European Union, until it met opposition by organic farmers because they did not have any viable alternative to it (Miller 2018). Despite using pesticides, organic products tout their supposed superiority in environmental and human health. Crop yields are also smaller, because organic farms often reject many advanced methods and technologies in favor of using more land and irrigation, which are serious environmental issues (Miller 2019). According to Miller, organic farms do not use methods that are environmentally sustainable. Instead, they till the soil, which disturbs it, encouraging runoff of pesticides and fungicides, and causing erosion. Some products do not even adhere to the list of permitted pesticides; the USDA reported that 43 percent of the 571 “organic” products tested in 2012 contained prohibited pesticide residues (Miller 2019). Unfortunately, some milk producers are subscribing to the organic fad as well. In Canada, Michele Henry found that the organic milk producers are making claims that, while true, also apply to conventional milk. Antibiotic residues in milk and using hormones that make cows produce more milk (like rBST) are both illegal in Canada (Henry 2018). The organic milk products have the absence of antibiotics and hormones on their labels, although conventional milk must also be free of traces of antibiotics and hormones (Henry 2018). Somatic cell counts (SCC), which is almost like a stress test for cows, of conventional and organic milk showed “categorically no difference” between the two, meaning cows on conventional and organic farms are equally happy (Miller 2018). The article Milked states that the SCC has more to do with the farmer than the method. Food labeled “organic” is not superior to conventionally farmed food, despite the many false claims by the producers.
Genetically modified (GM) organisms (GMOs) are in a situation similar to organic foods. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adamant that the currently 10 approved genetically modified foods have no significant difference compared to their non-GMO counterparts, there are still groups of people that adamantly oppose GMOs (Gedon 2019). The Non-GMO Project’s labels imply that the absence of genetically modified ingredients makes a product superior to one that is created using GM ingredients in more ways than just nutrition (Miller 2018). This could lead to consumers falsely believing that genetically modified products do harm to the environment, when, in fact, they are created to sustain agriculture and the environment; some are created to resist herbicides, pests, and viruses, while some products have the sugars and fats they create altered to be safer to eat or more nutritious (Molina 2015). The Non-GMO Project’s website has claims of foods being at “high-risk of GMO contamination,” which is obviously meant to imply that genetically modified foods are inferior, even dangerous (Miller 2018). Companies are using fear to sell their products. Some products that literally do not have genes are labeled non-GMO, like salt (Miller 2018). Other products are labeled non-GMO, despite not having a genetically modified counterpart on the market (Gedon 2019). Genetically modified products are few and far between, and companies prey on the ignorance of consumers regarding this matter.
There are many other deceptive food labels that the FDA has not cracked down on. “Natural,” “free of …,” “pure,” “healthful,” are just some. Natural, for example, has no definition set forth by the FDA, and the companies utilizing this label are using it simply as a flavor word to make their product sound better, although they might even be less healthy than the competing products (Silverglade 2010). Nutrient claims are not exempt either; a package of cookies might claim to be a “good source of calcium,” but, nutritionally, they are actually unhealthy (Wadyka 2017). Labels such as “free of …” or “free from …” are not indicators of health either. Of course, while the FDA mandates that claims similar to those be true, that does not mean the food is going to be healthy (Wadyka 2017). In 2005, the FDA issued a warning letter to General Mills, the manufacturer of Cheerios, because they made unauthorized health claims regarding cholesterol (Negowetti 2014). According to Negowetti’s article, the claim that “you can lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks,” meant that Cheerios were intended for use in lowering an individual’s cholesterol, making it a drug. Consumers do not know the difference between a truly “healthy” product and one that is simply using phrases to make itself seem better than the competition. The FDA’s inaction regarding these false or misleading labels has caused consumers to, literally, pay the price.
Some will say that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. I agree. But these products are intentionally misleading consumers with ridiculous claims of salt (which has no genes) as “non-GMO,” or plain water as “gluten-free,” when gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye products, so water is obviously going to be gluten free (Geodon 2019). False or misleading labels need to be addressed by the FDA. “Organic,” “non-GMO,” and false claims on labels will continue to deceive consumers unless the FDA takes action against the companies that are preying on consumers’ lack of knowledge.
Gedon, Trisha. “Food Labels Often Mislead Consumers - Oklahoma State University.” News And Information | Oklahoma State University, 2019, news.okstate.edu/articles/agricultural-sciences-natural-resources/2019/gedon_food_labels.html.
Henry, Michele. “Milked.” Thestar.com, The Star, 6 July 2018, projects.thestar.com/organic-milk/.
Miller, Henry I. “Buying 'Organic' to Get 'Authenticity'? Or Safer and More Nutritious Food? Think Again. And Again.” Missouri Medicine, Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association, 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390794/.
Miller, Henry I. “The Organic Industry Is Lying to You.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 5 Aug. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/the-organic-industry-is-lying-to-you-1533496699.
Molinaro, Jeremiah. “Which Plants Are GMOs?” Asu.edu, Arizona State University, 31 Mar. 2015, askabiologist.asu.edu/which-plants-are-transgenic.
Negowetti, Nicole E. “Food Labeling Litigation: Exposing Gaps in the FDA’s Resources and Regulatory Authority.” Brookings.edu, June 2014, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Negowetti_Food-Labeling-Litigation.pdf.
Silverglade, Bruce, and Ilene Ringel Heller. “Food Labeling Chaos.” Cspinet.org, 2010, cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf.
Wadyka, Sally. “How Food Packaging Claims Can Fool You.” Consumer Reports, 2017, www.consumerreports.org/food-labeling/how-food-packaging-claims-can-fool-you/.
Products that are labeled “organic” often claim that they are all-natural, free of pesticides, or, in the case of milk, come from cows that are treated more humanely (Henry 2018). However, conventional and organic products both use pesticides (Marcone 2019). One pesticide that organic farmers use, copper sulfate, a possible carcinogen, was to be banned by the European Union, until it met opposition by organic farmers because they did not have any viable alternative to it (Miller 2018). Despite using pesticides, organic products tout their supposed superiority in environmental and human health. Crop yields are also smaller, because organic farms often reject many advanced methods and technologies in favor of using more land and irrigation, which are serious environmental issues (Miller 2019). According to Miller, organic farms do not use methods that are environmentally sustainable. Instead, they till the soil, which disturbs it, encouraging runoff of pesticides and fungicides, and causing erosion. Some products do not even adhere to the list of permitted pesticides; the USDA reported that 43 percent of the 571 “organic” products tested in 2012 contained prohibited pesticide residues (Miller 2019). Unfortunately, some milk producers are subscribing to the organic fad as well. In Canada, Michele Henry found that the organic milk producers are making claims that, while true, also apply to conventional milk. Antibiotic residues in milk and using hormones that make cows produce more milk (like rBST) are both illegal in Canada (Henry 2018). The organic milk products have the absence of antibiotics and hormones on their labels, although conventional milk must also be free of traces of antibiotics and hormones (Henry 2018). Somatic cell counts (SCC), which is almost like a stress test for cows, of conventional and organic milk showed “categorically no difference” between the two, meaning cows on conventional and organic farms are equally happy (Miller 2018). The article Milked states that the SCC has more to do with the farmer than the method. Food labeled “organic” is not superior to conventionally farmed food, despite the many false claims by the producers.
Genetically modified (GM) organisms (GMOs) are in a situation similar to organic foods. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adamant that the currently 10 approved genetically modified foods have no significant difference compared to their non-GMO counterparts, there are still groups of people that adamantly oppose GMOs (Gedon 2019). The Non-GMO Project’s labels imply that the absence of genetically modified ingredients makes a product superior to one that is created using GM ingredients in more ways than just nutrition (Miller 2018). This could lead to consumers falsely believing that genetically modified products do harm to the environment, when, in fact, they are created to sustain agriculture and the environment; some are created to resist herbicides, pests, and viruses, while some products have the sugars and fats they create altered to be safer to eat or more nutritious (Molina 2015). The Non-GMO Project’s website has claims of foods being at “high-risk of GMO contamination,” which is obviously meant to imply that genetically modified foods are inferior, even dangerous (Miller 2018). Companies are using fear to sell their products. Some products that literally do not have genes are labeled non-GMO, like salt (Miller 2018). Other products are labeled non-GMO, despite not having a genetically modified counterpart on the market (Gedon 2019). Genetically modified products are few and far between, and companies prey on the ignorance of consumers regarding this matter.
There are many other deceptive food labels that the FDA has not cracked down on. “Natural,” “free of …,” “pure,” “healthful,” are just some. Natural, for example, has no definition set forth by the FDA, and the companies utilizing this label are using it simply as a flavor word to make their product sound better, although they might even be less healthy than the competing products (Silverglade 2010). Nutrient claims are not exempt either; a package of cookies might claim to be a “good source of calcium,” but, nutritionally, they are actually unhealthy (Wadyka 2017). Labels such as “free of …” or “free from …” are not indicators of health either. Of course, while the FDA mandates that claims similar to those be true, that does not mean the food is going to be healthy (Wadyka 2017). In 2005, the FDA issued a warning letter to General Mills, the manufacturer of Cheerios, because they made unauthorized health claims regarding cholesterol (Negowetti 2014). According to Negowetti’s article, the claim that “you can lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks,” meant that Cheerios were intended for use in lowering an individual’s cholesterol, making it a drug. Consumers do not know the difference between a truly “healthy” product and one that is simply using phrases to make itself seem better than the competition. The FDA’s inaction regarding these false or misleading labels has caused consumers to, literally, pay the price.
Some will say that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. I agree. But these products are intentionally misleading consumers with ridiculous claims of salt (which has no genes) as “non-GMO,” or plain water as “gluten-free,” when gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye products, so water is obviously going to be gluten free (Geodon 2019). False or misleading labels need to be addressed by the FDA. “Organic,” “non-GMO,” and false claims on labels will continue to deceive consumers unless the FDA takes action against the companies that are preying on consumers’ lack of knowledge.
Works Cited
Byrne, P, et al. “Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods.” Extension.colostate.edu, Apr. 2002, extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/foodnut/09371.pdf.Gedon, Trisha. “Food Labels Often Mislead Consumers - Oklahoma State University.” News And Information | Oklahoma State University, 2019, news.okstate.edu/articles/agricultural-sciences-natural-resources/2019/gedon_food_labels.html.
Henry, Michele. “Milked.” Thestar.com, The Star, 6 July 2018, projects.thestar.com/organic-milk/.
Miller, Henry I. “Buying 'Organic' to Get 'Authenticity'? Or Safer and More Nutritious Food? Think Again. And Again.” Missouri Medicine, Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association, 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390794/.
Miller, Henry I. “The Organic Industry Is Lying to You.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 5 Aug. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/the-organic-industry-is-lying-to-you-1533496699.
Molinaro, Jeremiah. “Which Plants Are GMOs?” Asu.edu, Arizona State University, 31 Mar. 2015, askabiologist.asu.edu/which-plants-are-transgenic.
Negowetti, Nicole E. “Food Labeling Litigation: Exposing Gaps in the FDA’s Resources and Regulatory Authority.” Brookings.edu, June 2014, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Negowetti_Food-Labeling-Litigation.pdf.
Silverglade, Bruce, and Ilene Ringel Heller. “Food Labeling Chaos.” Cspinet.org, 2010, cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf.
Wadyka, Sally. “How Food Packaging Claims Can Fool You.” Consumer Reports, 2017, www.consumerreports.org/food-labeling/how-food-packaging-claims-can-fool-you/.
Comments
Post a Comment