While I find it interesting that the standard for labeling is inverted between Sweeden and the US, I am not a bit surprised that the US opted to have the genetically modified goods be " standard". I think it works in correlation with the US Capitalist system. The US tends to prioritize customers attraction over product quality. For instance, the genetically modified goods in the market exceedingly surpass organic ones which tend to be more expensive considering the cost of resources associating with its production. Being that organic food is more expensive, it wouldn't attract a larger scale of customers as does the much cheaper genetically modified ones. Perhaps, another reason why organic products aren't the standard has to do with historical perceptions that although they are healthier than the alternative, they tend to lack attractive taste compared to their counterpart. Who would want to prioritize expensive and taste-deficient foods? While I understand why you believe that food agency should be required to provide the percentage of the organic property of their foods, I don't completely agree that only "100%" organic should be labeled as organic as there is only a few, perhaps if no, goods that are actually 100% organic. I think we should instead reevaluate the notion of "organic; how much percentage should be considered "organic"? Maybe holding that percentage as a baseline, we would then label foods according to their comparison to that baseline.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines " labeling " as all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matters upon any article or any of its containers .FDA require the device label to include adequate instructions for use, warning statement, updates of daily values may affect what nutrient content claims ,such as higher in fiber.  servicing instructions, or information that may be necessary for protection of users.

If the FDA were in charge of "organic" labeling, the word would be thrown around much less often. It's true that most of the food in America is not organic, but what you may not know is that there are some foods that have less organic qualities than others and still get the label. The NOP (national organic program) is in charge of enforcing the correct labeling of food when it comes to being labeled organic or not. I do not know much about the NOP, but I know that the FDA has recluses itself from being in charge of labeling food as "organic".

I was not aware of it until I came across this :
In the United States, there are four different levels or categories for organic labeling.

1)‘100%’ Organic: This means that all ingredients are produced organically.

2)‘Organic’: At least 95% or more of the ingredients are organic.

3)’Made With Organic Ingredients': Contains at least 70% organic ingredients.

4)‘Less Than 70% Organic Ingredients’: Three of the organic ingredients must be listed under the ingredient section of the label. In the U.S., the food label "natural" or "all-natural" does not mean that the food was produced and processed organically.
 And every country has a different standard for organic labeling and I don't feel there is any harm in that until it's stated (That the people know the labeling) clearly and falls in the category set by the country where the product is sold in.

Its surprising that the FDA has no part in regulation of the use of "organic" since they regulate claims and labeling in other aspects. As mentioned above, the use of "organic" is entirely regulated by the NOP. In order to claim food is organic, a company must comply with both the NOP regulations for organic on labels as well as the FDA regulations for labeling and food safety. 

( https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/organic-food-labels )

The NOP has regulations regarding organic claims for soil and water quality, use of fertilizers, lifestock nutrition, pest/weed management, and more to ensure the proper use of "organic" in products. 

( https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organ )

It is very interesting to study requirements around the world. The original post by Sara mentioned the difference in labeling requirements between Sweden and the United States. In this case, it seems the difference is due to the different cultures because in Sweden most of the food sold is organic. However, in the United States most of the food is processed. This could be why in the United States there are not regulations that state food packaging should depict the percent organic.  It is hard to answer the question whether the FDA should also mandate this kind of label like Sweden does because requirements are related to each country’s legislation and are so vastly different around the world. There has been attempts to harmonize regulations worldwide, but it has not been successfully implemented yet. I am wondering, do you think regulations should be harmonized worldwide or should it be up to each country to enforce regulation based on their culture/history? What are some pros and cons of each option?

Posted by: @cb447

 There has been attempts to harmonize regulations worldwide, but it has not been successfully implemented yet. I am wondering, do you think regulations should be harmonized worldwide or should it be up to each country to enforce regulation based on their culture/history? What are some pros and cons of each option?

I think it should be left up to the country based on their culture, history, religion, etc. There are definitely boundaries that all countries should accept such as the cleanliness when working with the product, correct labelling, etc. but there are many parts of the world that hold different standards that shouldn't be overstepped. The pro to a more harmonized system would be keeping a higher standard of food in this case for all countries. The con may be that a large number of the labels and manufacturing items that are used in many developed countries are not as accessible in less developed countries or area in a particular country where cost may start to increase due to a longer manufacturing process to abide by all regulations. Another con would be that each bag or package would have a much longer list of compliances followed that each country requires based on their culture and religions that would become more waste than it is useful. 

I believe that the FDA should be responsible for the said issue. The FDA’s mission statement is to protect the public health by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, medical devices, and food supply, so the FDA should have a say in how food is being labelled. I also have noticed the difference between the food in Europe and the US. The food in the US is not as healthy as Europe’s. A person can feel the difference in digestion between the two. Genetically modified food has long-term effects on human health. That issue arises because the US is a capitalist country and money is favored over the population’s health. The US should have stricter restrictions when it comes to food especially organic food. Usually customers buy organic food to have a healthier lifestyle, and it’s very hard to be healthy in the US because of the organic food labels.  

This thread reminds me of Proposition 37, a 2012 ballot measure in California which would have required labeling of genetically engineered food, with some exceptions. This was a heavily contested ballot measure, especially by food conglomerates that felt financially threatened by the measure. Conglomerates like Monsanto, Pepsico, Kraft, etc.. donated over 30 million dollars (combined) to see that this measure fail (In comparison, supporting funding amounted to ~4 million from various sources). In the end, the measure narrowly failed, 6,088,714 to 6,442,371. 

I think this situation is one reason why the FDA avoids being the regulatory body for "Organic" food labeling, because the large conglomerate food companies would have major backlash as seen in Prop 37. I think organic food labeling worked in countries like Sweden because large companies don't hold as much power and influence as they do over regulatory agencies within the US. 

Does anyone else agree/disagree? Would love to hear any thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Matt 

@mmd55 

Hey Matt,

This is really interesting! It is actually similar to the 2002 Ballot Measure 27, which was concerned with labeling food in Oregon that was genetically modified. It, as well, did not pass with 371,851 for and 886,806 against. Looking at the two timelines, it seems as if more people would prefer their food to be properly labeled as time went on. It seems likely that future generations may be in favor of this change, and we may see this in our lifetimes. As for organic food labeling controlled by the FDA, I agree with you. The companies that you have mentioned, certainly don’t appear to have organic processes, from my experience. I, however, do believe that if a person was interested in eating organic foods, they would take the time to do research themselves and not rely on the labeling. If this is the case, then the FDA wouldn’t necessarily have to regulate the organic food industry. Still, it would be interesting to see a similar proposition take hold in the future.

As far as whether or not the FDA should be responsible for if a food is labeled "organic" that it should be 100% organic, I don't believe that is the case, nor should it be the case. As per information found on the fda.gov website, the FDA does not regulate that term on food labels because the purpose behind the F in FDA is the conviction that they are responsible for assuring that foods that sold in the United States are "safe, wholesome, and properly labeled". Whereas the "properly labeled" part would be the only problematic detail in deciding if they are responsible for food labeled organic that are not actually organic, the FDA is still scot-free on this account because even if the food is partially organic it still has the organic assets or components to suffice that labeling. In terms of when they claim that the safety of food is their purpose as well, they are again fully supported here even with regards to genetically modified foods. The reason for this is because genetically modified foods are 100% safe. There are no recorded examples of evidence of a crop being dangerous to eat just because it's genetically modified. That fact in particular was referenced on royalsociety.org.

The FDA in America lacks in keeping responsibility on foods and how modified they are. I have struggled constantly with food here due to allergies, and a lot of the foods such as pastas or breads can actually trigger these migraines. What i have noticed is that when i visit my home country, bread and pastas(noodles) do not cause this. I think the FDA needs to be more responsible when labeling foods to help people see if any health medical issues could be from the food they are consuming. Also, some foods like the substance that makes fruit look "polished" and "waxed" have also contributed to people's allergies and something as simple as removing this or indicating this fruit has an added polish on top to make it appeal to the eye needs to be states due to people having allergies to these chemicals. Personally, due to many of my allergies and in addition to people i know have struggled with purchasing food or not having the ability to properly go grocery shopping/enjoy foods out with friends, ensuring the labels on products that indicate specific modifications and what there are is a necessary to help prevent future illnesses. 

Unfortunately, many genetically modified foods in the United States are labeled as natural and sold as such. I think the public should be made aware of this. But before the public becomes aware, the FDA needs to inspect organic products. The FDA should decide whether the products are 100% natural or not. Especially in today's world, almost every product has a 100% organic label on it, but how many of these products are organic? That's why the FDA needs to make an organic test and create a label for it. I think that it would be a warning for many product growers that a government-supported institution such as the FDA conducts this audit.

Thanks!