By Georgina Gustin

The chicken at the grocery store might be labeled "naturally raised." The
crackers might say "no GMOs" were used. The tomato could have a little
green-and-white sticker that says "USDA Organic." The salmon might say "Wild
Caught. Product of China."

The shelves and bins of our grocery stores are stocked with products labeled
with such claims.

And this year, labels got even more complicated. Or not ? depending on how
you look at it.

The last 12 months have seen major changes in the way Americans will get
information about their food. From the decision in January to allow meat and
milk from cloned animals onto American tables to the more recent
conversation about what constitutes an "organic" fish, it has been an active
stretch.

"There have been a lot of big decisions this year," said Chris Waldrop,
director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.
"But," he stressed, "not all of them resulted in actual labeling."

The food and biotechnology industries have claimed labeling victories this
year. Advocacy groups arguing for greater transparency and more information
have, too. But as these parties hash out the issues at public hearings and
in the media, the consumer is left holding the grocery bag, asking: What
does it all mean?

CLONED ANIMALS

After years of debate, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January
announced that meat and milk from cloned cattle, swine and goats are as safe
as products from conventional animals.

At the time, regulators also said they would not require clones or their
offspring to be labeled as such. The agency had determined there was no
difference between cloned and non-cloned meat or dairy products, and cited a
law that requires labeling only if food is significantly changed from
conventional food.

Consumer groups have argued that the long-term effects in humans haven't
been studied, and point to surveys showing that consumers don't want food
from clones. Several major food companies, wary of these concerns, have said
they will not use cloned meat or milk.

Without a label, consumers won't be able to know which products are cloned
and which are not, the consumer federation's Waldrop said. "That's not open,
acceptable or transparent," he added.

There currently are only about 600 cloned animals in the country, and those
animals are used for breeding, the industry says. Regulators have asked the
cloning companies to refrain from selling the clones until a moratorium is
lifted. And because the technology is so expensive, it's unlikely that the
clones will end up on dinner plates anytime soon. But their offspring will.

Some in the industry have said it's likely that the progeny ? which are bred
just as "regular" animals are ? are already in the food system. Others claim
it will be several years before that happens.

Regardless, consumer groups are calling for mandatory labels, saying it
would be possible to track the clones and their offspring through the food
system.

The cloning industry wants a voluntary program that would require retailers
who want the labels to buy from producers who track animals with
radio-frequency tags. "The bottom line is, we can provide consumers a
choice," said Barb Glenn, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

A big chunk of the food Americans eat comes from overseas ? more than 70
percent of seafood, 90 percent of lamb and mutton, nearly 30 percent of
fresh fruit overall and nearly all bananas.

But until recently there was no law requiring labels to tell consumers where
the food was grown or raised.

In 2005, new rules kicked in requiring grocery stores to post signs or
labels saying where seafood comes from. And on Sept. 30 of this year,
similar rules took effect for meat, produce and nuts.

Much of the produce we see in the market has long had stickers that say
where it's from, but those were voluntary and for marketing purposes. The
new rules, which apply to stores that sell more than $230,000 in food a
year, require labels, placards or stickers.

Although consumer groups say the new requirements are a good step, they
point out several loopholes. Anything processed ? such as roasted nuts,
bacon and combined vegetables, such as peas and carrots ? will not require a
label. And fish processed with other ingredients, such as breaded shrimp or
fish sticks, is exempt.

Some say the labels also can be misleading.

Although a "wild caught" fish probably was caught in the wild and a farmed
fish probably was farmed, if the label says "Product of China," the fish
could have been caught or farmed anywhere and simply processed in China.

GENETIC ENGINEERING

By some estimates, as much as 70 percent of what Americans buy in the
grocery store contains genetically modified plant-based ingredients, but
those don't require a label saying so. And this year, regulators said they
would not require labels for genetically engineered meat or seafood, though
none has yet been approved for the market.

As with cloning, regulators said they would not require labels for
genetically modified foods because the food was not "materially different"
from its conventional counterpart.

But, again, food safety groups say consumers should have the right to know
what they're buying, regardless of whether regulators have deemed it safe.
Regulators will require a safety review process for modified meat or
seafood ? something not required for plant-based genetically modified
ingredients.

Consumers eventually could see labels on fish or meat that say something
like "Not Genetically Modified," but that would be a voluntary claim. When,
however, an animal is genetically engineered to produce a certain
characteristic ? for example, milk that's high in vitamin C ? the label
would have to reflect that it has higher levels of vitamin C, though not
that it was genetically engineered.

Labels already can be found on some plant-based products in stores, but they
are voluntary and not necessarily pre-reviewed by regulators.

ORGANIC OR CLOSE?

In 2002, the Department of Agriculture launched the National Organic
Program, establishing strict standards for anything labeled "USDA Organic."
Although it was conceived as a marketing program, some consumers view it as
the gold standard for food purity and safety.

But last month, an advisory group suggested that fish fed non-organic food
could earn the organic label ? a direct violation of the standards.

In the interest of retaining the integrity of the label, some consumer
advocates say the best solution may be for fish not to get the organic label
at all.

In an interview this week, a Department of Agriculture official could not
say when a final rule would be issued.

As consumer demand for organic products has shot up in recent years, some
manufacturers have tried to cash in by using other terms that suggest
organic methods, such as "free range," "pasture raised" and "cage free."

Any meat label that makes such a "production" claim has to be approved if
it's sold beyond the state where it was produced, according to the
Department of Agriculture. But there are no regulatory definitions for these
claims. The department requires documentation to support a production claim
but doesn't do any on-site inspections.

A company that wants to use the term "grass fed" for beef can use the
department's imprimatur if it sticks to written standards, which were
finalized in late 2007. But companies that made the claim "grass fed" before
that point, according to consumer advocates, don't have to adhere to the
standards because they're grandfathered in. The term "natural" currently is
defined by the department for meats, but not by the Food and Drug
Administration, which declined earlier this year to weigh in on what
"natural" means.

The Agriculture Department is finalizing standards for "naturally raised,"
too, though food safety experts say the drafts that have been made public so
far are not stringent enough.

A decision is expected on the "naturally raised" standards soon.

With a new administration, 2009 could be another busy year for labeling.

President-elect Barack Obama has said he would back labeling of genetically
modified foods.

"We're really planning to pressure him on this," said Ronnie Cummins,
director of the Organic Consumers Association. "The important thing is that
consumers are now emboldened by the changes in Washington and encouraged by
the fact that they're having an impact."
www.checkbiotech.org