The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The U.S. Senate . . .reached a compromise to require food manufacturers to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, a bill that would preempt state-level laws. . . .
The Vermont law stipulates . . .a label must indicate there are some ingredients are . . .GMOs. The Senate proposal. . . gives food manufacturers a number of options for how to disclose which products have GM ingredients. . . .
. . . .
. . . . In my view, the proposed federal legislation, while consistent across the country, makes it very difficult for consumers to obtain the information they want to know . . .
. . . .
. . .[T]he Senate proposal. . . does not make it easy for consumers to actually find out whether a product has GM contents at the supermarket.
One food manufacturing company may choose a QR code, another a label, another a symbol and another a toll-free number. If consumers do not see a disclosure using words. . . they look for a symbol. If they don’t see a symbol, they scan the product with a smartphone or call a telephone number. . . .For a consumer purchasing multiple products, this will be a cumbersome process. . . .
Read full, original post: Why the GM food labeling debate is not over
