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.
- Black cutworm spring arrival has hostile welcome
- Reniform nematode continues to plague the Mid-South
- Japan has not narrowed trade differences with U.S.
- USDA awards grants to address impact of climate change on ag
- Innovation helps corn plants better withstand drought stress
- CF Industries shuts down Oklahoma facility for repairs
- Commentary: Blame anti-GMO groups for deaths
- Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
- What does “sustainable” food and agriculture really mean?
- Ohio bill to require certification to apply fertilizer
- Carbon-dioxide hurts nitrogen assimilation by plants
- DuPont calls on Congress to preserve RFS