Genetically Modified Organisms and the U.S. Retail Food Labeling Controversy: Consumer Perceptions, Regulation, and Public Policy

• Published date: 01 September 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12062
• Author: Syagnik Banerjee,Thomas A. Hemphill
• Date: 01 September 2015

Genetically Modified

Organisms and the U.S. Retail

Food Labeling Controversy:

Consumer Perceptions,

Regulation, and Public Policy

THOMAS A. HEMPHILL AND SYAGNIK BANERJEE

ABSTRACT

In this article, we address the public issue of mandatory

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) retail food labeling

in the U.S., first by reviewing the policy arguments both

in support and against labeling food containing GMOs;

second, by describing the existing U.S. federal regulatory

system pertaining to GMO labeling, and why it does not

presently require labeling of food containing GMOs;

third, by reviewing and interpreting the results of studies

of American consumer attitudes toward mandatory GMO

retail food labeling; fourth, by evaluating, through the

utilization of issue life cycle analysis in the nonmarket

environment, where the issue of GMO retail food labeling

stands in the national public policy process; fifth, sum-

marizing the state of scientific evidence addressing the

safety of GMO foods and the existing regulatory and

public policy environment for this issue; and sixth,

Thomas A. Hemphill is a Professor of Strategy, Innovation and Public Policy at the School of

Management, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502, USA. E-mail: thomashe@

umflint.edu. Syagnik Banerjee is an Associate Professor of Mobile and Interactive Marketing at

the School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502, USA. E-mail:

syban@umflint.edu.

bs_bs_banner

Business and Society Review 120:3 435–464

© 2015 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

offering legislative and litigation strategies for the main-

stream food nonmarket strategy framework to formally

assess the GMO industry to protect their interests and

those of American consumers not concerned with GMO

food ingredients, while offering a voluntary labeling strat-

egy for firms responding to and recognizing the “rights”

of American consumers who “choose” to purchase non-

GMO food products.

Over the last 20 years—since the genetically engineered

Flavr Savr tomato first appeared on America’s supermar-

ket shelves in 1994—the proliferation of genetically modi-

fied organisms (GMOs)1in the U.S. food supply has been a low-

key, persistent issue in the national public policy arena. That

public policy scenario, however, is rapidly changing, at least

regarding the mandatory retail labeling of processed food contain-

ing GMOs. On May 9, 2014, Vermont became the first State

government to mandate (via the passage of “Act 120”) the retail

labeling, effective July 1, 2016, of certain foods containing GMOs.

On June 12, 2014, a coalition of industry associations, includ-

ing the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the National Asso-

ciation of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in the District of

Vermont court challenging the legality of the state’s new GMO

retail food labeling law. In their brief, they cited a number of

Constitutional issues, including alleged violations of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, the Commerce Clause, and the

Supremacy Clause, all pertaining to Vermont’s regulating national

distribution and retail food labeling practices, and requesting

injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment invalidating the Act

(Grocery Manufacturers Association 2014c).2The final adjudica-

tion of this legal case will be a bellwether for other State govern-

ments and anti-GMO interest groups considering addressing this

public policy issue legislatively.

The general issue of GMOs has been publicly debated in the

broader global context—with mandatory retail food labeling often

legislatively triumphing. According to the Center for Food Safety

(2013a, 2013b), a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization,

64 countries now legally require some form of GMO retail food

436 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW