A million more signatures for GMO food labeling
Malkan and the Yes on 37 group say that the U.S. is a holdout on not labeling food that might have some GMO content because 50 nations of the world currently require a form of such labeling. Proposition 37 requires labeling of genetically engineered foods, which are plant or animal products whose DNA has been altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. It allows this labeling requirement to be phased in, although the ag industry doesn’t see it as a long enough phase-in period. Additionally, Yes on 37 claims this labeling change specific to California “would cost consumers nothing,” which the ag industry/food suppliers contend is a lie.
The whole basis for demanding such labeling is the underlying belief by activists that selling “genetically engineered foods that have never been proven safe for humans” shouldn’t be allowed. The big problem to Yes on 37 supporter philosophy is that genetically engineered foods have not been proven unsafe. No court case has ever been won by activists claiming the food from GMO crops is unsafe for humans or animal consumption.
- Junge Control introduces Zone Automation
- UAV maker PrecisionHawk receives $10 million in financing
- Tool helps track insects blowing in the wind
- FAO calls for “paradigm shift” toward sustainable agriculture
- Newly revised “Midwest Cover Crops Field Guide” released
- Weed seed present at harvest offers weed control opportunity
- U.S. GMO labeling foes triple spending in first half of this year
- Source shows half of GMO research is independent
- Activists fighting Golden Rice even more in 2014
- White House issues veto threat on bill to block WOTUS rule
- How much corn can the ethanol industry use?
- East-West Seed signs marketing collaboration with Monsanto