Non-GMO labeling is peaking in popularity.
This little label here, is now found on 43,000 products.
That's a lot of butterflies.
As consumers, when we're walking through the supermarket, and we see this label, we
assume the product is entirely GMO free, like the label implies.
But that assumption might not be correct.
The non-GMO project, has a variety of guidelines that must be met as you'd expect, and there's
a lot of stuff in those guidelines to consider.
I found one part of this really interesting though.
Here is the table from their own documentation that shows a variety of different categories
of products, and here are the "action thresholds" for each category.
Basically, whatever product you're trying to get verified has an allowance for the amount
of GMO it's allowed to contain.
That there is an allowance, a threshold at all, that's interesting to me.
Those of us consumers who look for the Non-GMO Project label, I think it's reasonable of
us to assume if it's got that label, it is Non-GMO, as in has NO GMO whatsoever, yet
according to their own guidelines, that's simply not the case.
.25%, 0.9%, 5%, 1.5%, I'm no mathematician, but none of those numbers are zero.
So…
Non-GMO project verified, apparently does not mean non-GMO, and that's verified by
their own thresholds.
Now on the other side of the GMO fence, you've got labels like "proudly made with GMOs".
If I wanted to put a "proudly made with GMOs" label on a hypothetical product, well
it doesn't need to be all GMO for that marketing label to be "truthful", and therefore
allowed.
It'd only need a little bit of GMO in there, maybe even LESS GMO than the non-GMO projects
own thresholds.
You see where I'm going with this.
According to current labeling rules, You could TECHNICALLY have a product that had a non-GMO
project verified label, and also had a "Proudly made with GMO" label.
I am all ears to hear a reason why my thinking is wrong on this.
Frankly, I'd love to be wrong about this, because if I'm right, our labeling system
is totally broken, and labels mean nothing.
For fairness sake, I will point out that the Non-GMO project says in the same document
that "absence of all GMOs is the target for all non-GMO Project Standard Compliant
Products."
They DO say that.
But, there own thresholds seem to say that target doesn't need to be strictly met to
get this label.
Sure, they're striving for perfection, but they don't seem to let the fact they haven't
achieved it yet stop them from labeling products, even if they do TECHNICALLY contain GMO.
Wrapping up: Question: DO THE CONSUMERS KNOW ABOUT THIS?!?!
I don't think this threshold detail is something the non-GMO project wants a heck of a lot
of publicity around.
If you're an avid Non-GMO project supporter, if you trust that label, maybe it's worth
reaching out to the Non-GMO project.
Ask them why they allow for some GMO in the products they verify are non-GMO.
It doesn't strike me as fair to convince consumer they need to avoid GMO no matter
the cost, and then allow GMO contamination in the products they're verifying.
Look, transparency and fairness are kind of crucial when you're talking to people about
food.
Imagine if I said all our videos are free from industry support, they're all Non-Monsanto
Verified, but then you found out I actually get 5% of my support from Monsanto, but it's
below the threshold I've set myself, so it's fine, just ignore it.
Yea… that wouldn't fly.
That's kind of what the non-GMO project is doing, and in my book, that's kind of
shady.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét