(Washington, D.C.) ­ In comments submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, the National Food Processors Association has commended FDA for its draft guidance on voluntary labeling for foods that have or have not been derived through biotechnology.

"It is very important that FDA has affirmed its 1992 statement, reiterating there are limited circumstances in which labeling of changes introduced to biotechnology food products would be required, and explaining that process-based labeling is not required. Equally important, the agency has set forth guidance for companies that wish to offer consumers additional information through voluntary labeling," said Regina Hildwine, NFPA Senior Director of Food Labeling and Standards.

"Consumers will benefit only if voluntary biotechnology labeling conforms to standards assuring the information is truthful and not misleading. In this regard, the FDA has provided appropriate and much needed guidance to the food industry through its authority under the misbranding provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act," Hildwine said. Among NFPA¹s specific comments:

• NFPA supports FDA¹s preference for the terms "biotechnology" and "genetically engineered" to describe plants derived through recombinant DNA technology. NFPA recommends they be used consistently in label claims to clarify that it is the plant sources of foods and food ingredients that are developed through biotechnology and not the ingredients themselves. For example, FDA cites a sample biotechnology presence claim, "This product contains cornmeal that was produced using biotechnology." NFPA believes this example should be worded, "This product contains cornmeal from corn that was produced using biotechnology."

• NFPA agrees with FDA that claims such as "GMO free" may be inaccurate, misleading and not well understood by consumers. NFPA supports FDA¹s conclusion that terms such as "GMO free," "not genetically modified" and "free of genetically modified organisms," which include the word modified, are not technically accurate since traditional techniques of plant development also result in products that are "genetically modified."

• Further, NFPA agrees that use of the term "free" of bioengineered materials may be potentially misleading because consumers will assume the food contains zero adventitious bioengineered material. NFPA agrees with FDA that currently there is insufficient scientific information to establish a threshold for use of the term "free."

• NFPA supports FDA¹s advice that a statement that a food was not bioengineered, or does not contain bioengineered ingredients, may be misleading if it implies that the labeled food is superior to foods that are not so labeled. Likewise, NFPA believes that such statements would be misleading if they state or imply any type of warning regarding foods developed through biotechnology.

• NFPA agrees with FDA¹s advice that a "certified organic" statement in compliance with the recently promulgated National Organic Program standard likely would be sufficient to substantiate a claim that a food was not produced through biotechnology, since biotechnology is a method excluded from "organic" production and handling. NFPA also urged FDA to be vigilant that "organic" foods comply with the guidance on food biotechnology claims. NFPA¹s comments are in reference to Docket No. 00D-1598, Draft Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Availability, 66 Federal Register 4839, January 18, 2001.