GMO Labeling Laws: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

3 thoughts on “GMO Labeling Laws: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back”

  1. I don’t see labeling as particularly useful. ‘Non-GMO’ is even less meaningful a term than ‘Organic’, and will only serve to further mislead the poorly informed public about what food is more or less healthy/ethical/sustainable. Whether to improve health or agriculture, GMOs have massive potential produce positive change, of course, that’s more likely to happen if those changes are profitable…
    As for deferring and waiting on other states, it seems like a prudent decision from how you’ve explained it, though it does say some scary things about the US justice system, if states fear enacting policies that reflect the wishes of their population for fear of reprisals from corporations.

    1. I definitely see your point, Alan! While I am on the fence on the health aspect of GMO-based foods, I do feel that consumers have the right to know – people might decide to eschew products that contain GMOs for other reasons as well, including to boycott certain corporations and practices. Proper, balanced education about the good and bad of gentech would of course be necessary (already is now) for labels to work effectively. And ditto on your last point about the justice system – it’s scary to think that states are afraid of litigation just because they know that companies have so much more cash and lawyers at hand than a public institution…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *