StarTribune pro and con on food labels

Concern about the health and environmental effects of genetic engineering continue to grow.” and “Requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods, on the other hand, is a solution in search of a problem.

Ronnie Cummins: Why we need GMO food labeling

Susan K. Finston: GMO food labels are costly and unnecessary


About these ads

2 responses to “StarTribune pro and con on food labels

  1. “More than 100 peer-reviewed studies have shown that GMOs damage the vital organs, immune systems and reproductive functions of animals.”

    Peers who believe in GMO damage.

    Polls show the vast majority of people are superstitious. Ipso facto, we must have labels.

    That no one reads.

  2. Food labels are a farce! You cannot buy a single grape without one or two COOL, (Country Of Origin Labels) on it. But consumers, ranchers and farmers have fought for decades to get the same labels on meat since the standards in other countries are much lower than our own. But the Packing industry has successfully lobbied and blocked any such legislation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s