“A new bill in California would force food producers to disclose if any genetically engineered ingredients were in what you eat. Is the law common sense or simply trying to hold back the future of food?“
The very act of labeling suggests to consumers there’s something potentially risky about X – if you don’t believe it try giving away bottles of water labeled “Contains DiHydrogen Monoxide” and see what reactions you get.
In 1983, scientists created the first genetically modified plant. Fast forward a mere 29 years later and approximately 80% of all packaged food in the U.S. contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. But there’s no way for you to tell–producers aren’t required to use any labeling that indicates the use of GE crops.
That may soon change in California, where Proposition 37 (AKA the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) will be placed on voter ballots in the upcoming November election. If passed, the proposition will require most foods containing GE ingredients (with the exception of alcoholic beverages, dairy, meat, and poultry) to come with special labeling.
If GMO science is so good they should be proud to put it on labels. Maybe they’ve got something to hide?
Virtually nothing in the store occurs naturally.
GMO labels are bad marketing.
“Maybe they’ve got something to hide?” Please specify what they are hiding. Unless you can specify what it is, that is nothing but a cheap shot. Tasteless, negative innuendo.
Genetic engineering is used because it is beneficial. It wouldn’t be used if it wasn’t.
Read this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf
Then insist that all those tens of thousands of chemicals are labelled, and marked if they haven’t been tested for safety.
GE/GM costs money. No person will get involved with GE/GM unless the potential profit will exceed development costs and potential risks. The idea of labeling secondary products is an attack on cheaper food and organic products from GM/GE. Wheat from the Middle East has gone through selective “engineering” by farmers for 8000 years to get a more desirable product. The flour is mostly the same as 8000 years ago.
This controversy strikes me as similar to the assault rifle ban, i.e. one of description. Will grapes that grow from grafted vines be considered GE, or will only those that have actual chromosome transfer from gamete to gamete be affected? Has anyone actually found damage caused to humans or animals, or even an ecosystem, from a GE plant?
Hey. Gamecock “negative innuendo”?. They take the bitter element out of grapefruit, and that’s progress? Think about it. I want to know if they’ve stuffed around with my food. Then I’ll choose. My prerogative man.