Whether Congress decides to block GMO labeling is about more than the right to know what we're buying and eating. It's also about consumer confusion.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Some opponents of GMO labeling claim that disclosing genetically modified ingredients will increase food prices. But every shopper knows food companies routinely change their labels to make new claims and highlight innovations.
If food is labeled, some people might choose to eat stuff that's genetically modified. They might decide they love it. But give us a choice.
Unfortunately in the U.S., the courts have pretty much sided with the GMO lobby and suggesting that a farmer has no rights to be protected from GMO contamination.
To reap the benefits of GMO technology, the U.S. must ensure that decisions about our food system are made based on science, not innuendo.
I support GMOs. And we should label them. We should label them because that is the very best thing we can do for public acceptance of agricultural biotech. And we should label them because there's absolutely nothing to hide.
The industry's not stupid. The industry knows that if those foods are labeled 'genetically engineered', the public will shy away and won't take them.
Over time, yes, countries will need to look at specific GMO products like they look at drugs today, where they don't approve them all. They look hard at the safety and the testing. And they make sure that the benefits far outweigh any of the downsides.
I'm opposed to censorship of any kind, especially by government. But it's plain common sense that producers should target their product with some kind of sensitivity.
It's time to get the FDA to reverse its 1994 decision not to label GM foods.
Advocates of GMO labeling aren't seeking a warning label. We're simply asking for a factual, non-judgmental disclosure on the back of the package.