BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Gerber Formula Goes Non-GMO, But Not Really

Following
This article is more than 8 years old.

by Layla Katiraee and Kavin Senapathy

On February 10th, Gerber announced that its “Good Start” line of formulas have gone non-GMO. “You asked, and we listened. GERBER GOOD START formulas are now all non-GMO,” the company, a subsidiary of Nestlé Group, declared via Facebook.

A question on parents’ minds at mealtime and especially during infancy before introducing solids:  Am I feeding my child nutritious, safe and healthy food? When it comes to non-GMO formula, Gerber itself admits it’s not about safety or nutrition.

“Formulas made without genetically modified ingredients provide no additional nutritional benefit to your baby,” wrote a social media representative on Facebook. “Based on feedback from parents looking for more non-GM product options, we decided to make our formulas without the use of genetically modified ingredients.”

Loosely translated from PR speak, this means that the company caved to consumer pressure to change the sourcing of certain ingredients though it admittedly makes no difference to a child’s health.

As we wrote in our Moms for GMOs" open letter from scientist and advocate moms calling for those in the public eye to weigh GMO foods with facts and not fear:

“Genetic engineering is simply another plant breeding tool. It results in a targeted genetic change or adds one or a few carefully chosen genes to a plant. The technology may sound scary, but genes actually transfer naturally between species. Genetic engineering has been used for decades to make life-saving medicines including insulin. Hundreds of studies show that the process used to create GMOs, and the GM products currently on the market are safe, and scientific bodies around the world agree.”

Not only is Gerber flying in the face of the safety and benefits of genetic engineering, but it’s unlikely that all the ingredients in Gerber’s new Good Start formulation are truly non-GMO.

When asked whether any of the vitamins for the new Good Start formulation would be derived from genetically engineered yeast or microbes, a Nestlé representative for Gerber had the following to say:

We are constantly reviewing and updating our supply chain with new ingredients. All of our infant formula products that are labeled non-GMO label meet our internal definition, which is consistent with the definitions of the European Union and the state of Vermont, the only U.S. state with GMO legislation.”

Notably, the state of Vermont’s labeling bill stipulates that processed foods are exempt from GMO labeling if the amount of “genetically engineered materials” accounts for less than 0.9% of the total weight. Vitamins and micronutrients, which make up a tiny fraction of the weight of infant formulas, can be derived from genetically engineered sources. And Gerber wouldn't confirm nor deny whether its Good Start formulas' vitamins were derived this way.

There are documented instances of products losing their vitamin and nutrient fortification after being awarded non-GMO certification. The Non-GMO Project, arguably the largest third party GMO ingredient certification standard, includes vitamins such as vitamins A, B12 and more, as ingredients with “GMO risk,” precluding products containing the nutrients from carrying the ubiquitous orange butterfly stamp of approval.

This so-called “risk,” or in less hyped rhetoric, the possibility of a vitamin being derived from a genetically engineered source, arises primarily via two methods:

1) the synthesis of a vitamin can rely on microorganisms engineered to produce them. For example, the industrial synthesis of riboflavin is hailed as one of the “great success stories of biotechnology and metabolic engineering,” with deficiency in humans “associated with skin lesion and corneal vascularization.” Engineered fungus or bacteria synthesize this important micronutrient.

2) the industrial manufacturing of the micronutrient may rely on crops as raw material, which may be GM in origin. Vitamin C production, for example, can use corn. Websites promoting a non-GMO lifestyle have lists of all the vitamins that could be GMO in origin (see here and here).

Though Non-GMO Project has items listed as “Baby Food and Infant Formula,” the list includes only solid foods, not infant formulas. While baby food contains vitamins and minerals inherent in the fruits and vegetables used in its processing, infant formula must be fortified with added vitamins and micronutrients that may be produced through genetic engineering. Food manufacturers can get away with decreasing the nutritional content of foods like cereals to obtain Non-GMO Project certification, but the FDA disallows decreases in the nutritional composition of infant formula below a minimum threshold.

The organic standard allows for GE derived micronutrients unless foods are explicitly labeled as 100% organic. Otherwise, the USDA’s Organic label allows for a small percentage of non-organically derived ingredients, which can include vitamins and minerals. Consequently, there are organic baby formula brands on the market, but it is unlikely that they’d qualify for the stricter Non-GMO Project certification due to the presence of nutrients derived from GE microbes.

And therein lies the most likely reason Gerber self-certified rather than use the coveted Non-GMO Project butterfly--the company doesn’t make the cut.

According to Gerber, the formula’s new non-GMO label “refers to the fact that the ingredients we use in our products are not from crops grown with genetically engineered seed.” As we know, crops aren’t the the only genetically engineered sources of ingredients in baby formula and food.

Let’s coin a new phrase, “pulling a Gerber,” to define vague language suggesting that the only ingredients free from genetic engineering are those derived from crops and not those derived from microorganisms. That’s some hard-core marketing.

The company's switch to “Non-GMO Ingredients” is a mom-shaming gimmick. With breastfeeding seen as the gold standard for infant nutrition (though research shows that breastfeeding doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes when accounting for confounding factors like higher socioeconomic status and reduced likelihood of smoking for breastfeeding moms), many parents experience guilt when switching to formula. Sleep-deprived and naturally anxious with newly-endowed responsibility for a helpless, delicate life, moms encountering a non-GMO label with no reason nor explanation might go GMO-free “just in case.”

As we’ve written countless times, genetic engineering is a valuable tool that’s no more or less “risky” than non-GE breeding methods; to say otherwise flies in the face of all of the leading scientific bodies around the world, and brushes off the weight of hundreds of studies supporting GE technologies’ safety and benefits.

Gerber agrees, albeit in an ineffectual way. A position statement shared for this article says:

Gerber has always been in favor of innovation and the responsible use of scientific and technological advances. Genetic modification is one of several areas of biotechnology and it potentially has a role to play in helping feed a growing world population. Gerber is committed to listening to consumers and understanding their preferences for how they want to feed themselves and their families.”

Perhaps Gerber should have taken a page from America's beloved Girl Scout’s organization, whose website states:

“At the current time, there are genetically modified agricultural crops (GMOs) in Girl Scout Cookies...It is important to note that there is worldwide scientific support for the safety of currently commercialized ingredients derived from genetically modified agricultural crops.”

Way to stand with evidence rather than pandering, Girl Scouts. Gerber, how about following the big girl example of standing with science.

Layla Katiraee holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Toronto and a Bachelors degree in biochemistry from the University of Western Ontario. She is currently a Staff Scientist in Product Development at a genetics biotech company. All views and opinions expressed are her own. You can follow her on Twitter or Facebook. Kavin Senapathy is an author and public speaker. Her book examining popular food myths, “The Fear Babe:  Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House,” with co-authors Marc Draco and Mark Alsip, is available now. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.