This week saw the end of the period set aside for the public to comment on a set of oft-delayed rules which may govern the state of GMO labeling around the country for years to come.
The end of the comment period this week comes at an interesting time, as two largely contradictory studies released last month suggest that mandatory GMO labeling may either decrease or harden public opposition to GMOs.
The study "Found that Vermont's GMO labeling law may have...decreased opposition to GMOs." But another study issued last month-this one by the International Food Information Council Foundation-concluded something quite different, namely that "Consumers are generally inclined to avoid foods if they are aware of them."
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is extraordinarily problematic, as I described in a May column shortly after the USDA announced it was opening the proposed rules to public comment.
What's "BE" mean, you ask? The USDA proposes to use the term "BE"-short for "Bioengineered"-to designate foods that are genetically modified or that contain GMO ingredients.
A USDA hyperlink listed in the agency's request for public comment in this very rulemaking now redirects from the "GMO"-suffixed web address for a page that had been labeled "GMO Disclosure & Labeling" to a "BE"-suffixed web address that's now labeled "BE Disclosure & Labeling." If the goal of the proposed USDA rules was to confuse the public rather than inform them, then the agency accomplished its mission.
Holly Wells writes "I do not currently support GMOs due to the lack of information on them and the clear manipulation and vast financial resources that are being sent to keep information on GMOs suppressed from customers, and the public citizenry in general." Commenters also appear largely to favor mandatory labeling of GMO foods.
http://reason.com/archives/2018/07/07/usda-considers-lousy-gmo-labeling-rules
The end of the comment period this week comes at an interesting time, as two largely contradictory studies released last month suggest that mandatory GMO labeling may either decrease or harden public opposition to GMOs.
The study "Found that Vermont's GMO labeling law may have...decreased opposition to GMOs." But another study issued last month-this one by the International Food Information Council Foundation-concluded something quite different, namely that "Consumers are generally inclined to avoid foods if they are aware of them."
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is extraordinarily problematic, as I described in a May column shortly after the USDA announced it was opening the proposed rules to public comment.
What's "BE" mean, you ask? The USDA proposes to use the term "BE"-short for "Bioengineered"-to designate foods that are genetically modified or that contain GMO ingredients.
A USDA hyperlink listed in the agency's request for public comment in this very rulemaking now redirects from the "GMO"-suffixed web address for a page that had been labeled "GMO Disclosure & Labeling" to a "BE"-suffixed web address that's now labeled "BE Disclosure & Labeling." If the goal of the proposed USDA rules was to confuse the public rather than inform them, then the agency accomplished its mission.
Holly Wells writes "I do not currently support GMOs due to the lack of information on them and the clear manipulation and vast financial resources that are being sent to keep information on GMOs suppressed from customers, and the public citizenry in general." Commenters also appear largely to favor mandatory labeling of GMO foods.
http://reason.com/archives/2018/07/07/usda-considers-lousy-gmo-labeling-rules
No comments:
Post a Comment