Chicago Tribune: ‘Basic’ GMO label will not help consumers make informed purchases

Picture

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

[…]

On Tuesday, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine released a long-anticipated study that clarified two major points:

•Genetically engineered crops are no more of a health risk to humans than conventionally bred crops are.

•The insect and weed resistance that has evolved through their use is a “major agricultural problem.”

[…]

It ends with a chapter on the regulation of genetically engineered crops. And it recommends, in effect, that we stop confusing the process (genetic engineering) with the product (say, a corn tortilla).

“All technologies for improving plant genetics — whether genetic engineering or conventional — can change foods in ways that could raise safety issues,” the report counsels.

In the U.S. and Europe, activists have turned “GMO” into a dirty acronym, and some states are moving forward with laws that will require foods with GMOs to be labeled. The first of its kind takes effect July 1 in Vermont. Without more complete information about a food’s origins or the process through which it was grown, we don’t see how a basic “GMO” label will help consumers make truly informed purchases.

Read full, original post: Some answers — and more questions — about GMOs

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.