Environmental Working Group does not support Senate’s GMO labeling bill

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

For a variety of reasons, EWG does not support the Roberts-Stabenow legislation . . .

. . . .

While the Roberts-Stabenow bill imposes a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food, it lacks many elements of the national GMO labeling system that EWG has fought for at the state and federal levels. . . .

In particular, the USDA may define­­ – potentially too narrowly – the types of biotechnologies that will be subject to the labeling requirement. The USDA will also establish the threshold amount of GMO-derived ingredients that will mandate labeling. The department is also given discretion to determine how to hold companies accountable if they fail to label.

. . . .

At the same time, senators eliminated many of the worst features food and agriculture interests sought for the legislation. . . .GMO labeling will be mandatory. . . QR codes will only have to appear on GMO foods. . . Once a consumer scans the code, the GMO disclosure must be prominent on the first product information page.

. . . [T]he bill also contains important protections for organic food and farming. . . .

Read full, original post: Will GMO Labeling ‘Win’ Be Undermined by Loopholes?

{{ 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.