Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Northeast U.S. Continues to be a Hotspot for GMO-Labeling Bills

Mark Lynas, the British environmentalist and author, recently wrote in the Washington Post that activists should not be more convincing than scientists when it comes to issues like GMO food. But in Massachusetts, activists from organizations such as the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group and MA Right to Know GMOs aren’t letting such concerns stop them.

Instead, they’ve been popping champagne corks because they’ve convinced three out of four Massachusetts lawmakers to sign on as sponsors to House Docket 369, “An Act establishing the genetic engineering transparence food and seed labeling act.” They’ve enlisted 125 state representatives and 29 state senators to help sponsor the GMO-labeling bill, for a total of 154 out of 200 state lawmakers.

bostoncapitoldome_406x250“We are extremely lucky to have so many incredible legislators supporting this effort here in Massachusetts,” said Martin Dagoberto, of MA Right to Know GMOs. “The level of support from both the House and Senate, as well as from residents from across the state, speaks to the momentum behind passing a GMO labeling bill this session.”

New England states have been a hotspot for GMO food-labeling bills in the past. Vermont has the only standalone law, which is being challenged in federal court. Maine and Connecticut have adopted GMO laws which are contingent on enough surrounding states passing similar laws in order to take effect.

This legislative session, neighboring Rhode Island is again considering two GMO-labeling bills, Senate Bill 549 and Senate Bill 557. They differ in their implementation dates.

SB 549 would become law on Jan. 1, 2017. SB 557 would not become effective until four other states, including one adjacent to Rhode Island with a combined population totaling 20 million, adopt similar laws.

Except for the assignment of the bill number and title, the actual language for the Massachusetts bill is not yet available.

Outside the Northeast region, the campaign for state-required GMO labeling has fallen short again and again. Four states — California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington — have now seen voters shoot down GMO-labeling initiatives, usually by slim margins after massive spending by the anti-labeling side. Legislative bills outside the Northeast have usually been quickly killed by agriculture committees.

After hearing oral arguments in January, a federal judge in Vermont has taken under advisement motions ranging from a temporary or permanent injunction against the labeling law to dismissal of the lawsuit against it. The main parties in that case are the Grocery Manufacturing Association and the State of Vermont.

Lynas, a former anti-GMO activist whose mind was changed by science, warns that “science deniers are on the march” on issues such as climate, vaccines and GMO food. However, TV’s Bill Nye (the Science Guy) recently indicated that he, too, may have changed his mind about GMO food after talking with more scientists about it, including some at Monsanto.

© Food Safety News
  • Grant Ingle

    This article gives the false impression that people favoring GMO labeling legislation aren’t paying attention to the science that bears on issues of GMOs and associated agrochemicals. To the contrary, there is plenty of science that supports the need to label GMOs and raises serious health and environmental concerns about the increased use of agrochemicals like Roundup (glyphosate): http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/

    • Jeff Leonard

      Grant, citing an advocacy site for information about glyphosate probably works for legislators but has no bearing in the scientific world. If you are genuinely concerned about Roundup then advocate for labeling of crops treated with Roundup. General labeling of GMOs carries no information as 1) many of refined labeled products (sugars, oils, starches), have no altered proteins and 2) the label tells one nothing about the nature of the modification. For example, Innate potatoes are not Roundup resistant, nor Rainbow papayas, nor Arctic apples. All would be potentially labeled GMOs but have nothing to do with glyphosate. Also if one wants to know of pesticide usage then equal time should be given for imadazoline herbicides (non-GMO Clearfield crops like sunflower, wheat, rice lentils) atrazine (naturally resistant corn), rotenone (organic crops), copper sulfate (organic crops)………etc. The list is long.

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        A huge majority of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled.

        Amazingly Its not one poll that indicates over 93% of American Consumers support GMO labeling ~ its at least 7 consumer polls.

        The New York Times, 07/27/13
        A recent New York Times poll found that 93% of Americans favor labeling of GE food http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=1&

        MSNBC, 2/25/11
        Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?
        Yes – 96% of over 45,000 voters believe genetically modified foods should be labeled

        Reuters / NPR, 10/10
        Poll conducted by Thompson Reuters and National Public Radio finds 93% of Americans believe all GE foods should be labeled as such; only 35% willing to eat GE fish

        Washington Post, 9/17/10
        Should genetically-modified food be labeled?
        Yes – 95%

        KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis, 9/21/10
        Should Genetically Modified Salmon Carry a Different Label?
        Yes, Should be labeled as genetically modified fish – 95%

        Consumer Reports, 11/11/08
        2008 Food Labeling Poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.

        ABC News, 6/19/01
        An ABC News poll found that 93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

        This alone is a valid reason to create transparency and label GMO foods. Since the industry claims these foods are safe the GMO pesticide industry should come clean with the people about the rabid paranoia they have about seeing these foods labeled. Yet they don’t, instead they ramp up the corrupt GMO pesticide disinformation echo chamber just like the tobacco industry did before them.

        • Jeff Leonard

          Meanwhile, only 32% of Americans can even define what a GMO is http://www.medicaldaily.com/americans-buy-organic-non-gmo-food-without-knowing-what-it-means-thanks-marketing-311644

          while 69% think (wrongly) that organics are grown without pesticides http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR_Organic-Marketing-Report_Print.pdf

          When I get on a jet I want a pilot with lots of experience and knowledge. If I have to have surgery, I want a doctor with training and experience. So I will stick with science rather than public opinion lest we end up like the future portrayed in the movie ‘Idiocracy’.

          • Debbie Owen

            If GMOs are labeled then more people will become aware and be able to define them. No one else should be able to decide for us what we should know and what we shouldn’t know about the food we pay for and feed to our families. Label GMOs!

        • grifty

          That’s because a lot of time, money and energy have been spent talking about how “bad” GMOs are without any real conter. WHO has not safety concerns about GMOs, but the Food Babe does..so it must be a problem. People want labeling..so it must be s problem. Most people are clueless on the issue and rely on the loudest and most frequently repeated talking points.

  • Greg

    I’m not sure I see the issue of labeling as anti-science. Just as the GMO-Free labels popping up are mostly marketing, I see the desire to keep GMO and crop origin information away from consumers as a marketing effort as well.

    Food manufacturers complained when they were forced to list all the ingredients on packaging. They said it would ruin their business and consumers would never buy products with hard-to-pronounce words on the packaging. They were wrong. They are wrong about this too.

    • patzagame

      actually,not so much,Greg,people are shying away from from hard-to-pronounce words on packaging.They are also shying away from food manufacturers who use glyphosate residues GMO crops in their ingredients.Consumers are looking for pure,natural ,gmo free ,organic ingredients.

      • grifty

        How frequ fly have you heard “if I can’t pronoun e it, I don’t eat it”. Which is stupid be use pretty much everything can be broken down into a scary sounding chemical name..we just allow common names too. Think about a bag of apples. Ingredients: apples. Or you could list a long string of chemical names to describe the apple. Labeling and naming matter.

        • patzagame

          well everything on a food label isn’t broken down into “scary” sounding chemical names,however there are plenty of “chemical additives” which compromise the ingredient list of processed foods.Labeling and naming matter for sure,go read the difference between a potato chip bag and a can of Pringles. Stupid argument.

  • AuntyMM

    excuse me, but where is the science that says providing consumers with more information via labels is a bad idea?

    • grifty

      these laws are rather blatent attempts to stigmatize the process, not genuine requests for info. If you need to know, then buy organic.

  • Martin Dagoberto

    One of the reasons we’ve been able to garner so much support in Massachusetts is because we actually understand the science, and can address the misinformation pushed by the chemical/junk food industry lobbyists. I received a degree in biotechnology and genetics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 2006, so I’m not exactly a random “activist.” We also work with globally recognized experts in the field to bring the facts to our legislators.

    The federal government’s inaction on GMO labeling is based on a 1992 FDA policy statement that declared GMO crops to be “substantially equivalent” to their non-GMO counterparts, and therefore, as a category, not in need of additional safety testing or special labeling or tracking. This policy was announced as a deregulatory measure at an industry event, without any scientific foundation, by then vice president Dan Quayle.

    The World Health Organization and the American Medical Association both recommend mandatory pre-market safety testing of each individual GMO crop, a condition the US fails to meet. Anyone saying that GMOs are categorically safe is being “anti-science.” The FDA’s own scientists, according to internal memos released as the result of a lawsuit, had expressed concerns over the unintentional introduction of toxins and allergens and said that at the very least, we should label GMOs and track consumption in order to monitor potential impacts. However, these concerns were whitewashed by FDA administrators, including former Monsanto executive, Michael Taylor, now the U.S. food safety czar.

    I’m not against science. I just don’t want my children to be lab rats. I don’t trust Monsanto and the other chemical manufacturers when they assure my government that their products are safe. Is that so unreasonable? Contrary to industry claims, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO crops. While further (independent, long-term) research is necessary, we have a right to opt out of the GMO food experiment. The states are now picking up where the federal government has failed us.

    With consistent GMO labeling laws passed in Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, the states are setting the standard for a national mandatory GMO labeling law. It’s only a matter of time. For the sake of the future of biotechnology (which I recognize offers great promise), proponents need to stop fighting transparency and embrace a more democratic future for the technology. Saying “you don’t need to know” isn’t going to win any supporters.

    • Viriato77

      Do you ever get tired of flogging your under-whelming credentials. Even Bill Nye had to change his point of view after re-evaluating his position. I would trust an experienced science communicator over an undergraduate degree that probably hasn’t been used for actual bench research. About that increasing number of Americans stat. Wasn’t there also a poll that showed 85% of Americans wanted to know if their food contained DNA? Think about that statement. What we have more than anything in this country is science illiteracy and you’re not helping that situation. As far as the level of expertise and specialization required, yes, your BS is lowly if you haven’t had any technical experience since getting it. So get over yourself. Your friends working in medical biotech, they should stick to medical biotech and actually ask questions of scientists who work with the molecular biology of plants. Even at the higher levels of research and specialization it’s nothing short of arrogance for someone to assert judgement on a topic outside their narrow professional field.

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        Bill Nye has a four year undergraduate degree from Cornell. He is an entertainer not a scientist.

        Bill Nye loves “science” all the way to the bank.

        All the other GMO pesticide industry disinformation operatives say the same things you do, Viriato77.

        Only a fool would believe the GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber that you represent here.

        Bill Nye has sold out and now represents GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science.

        You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

        • GMO Roberts

          Wait a second, I’m confused. Does he represent the gmos, or the junk pseudo science that is against them? It would be wrong to say both.

      • patzagame

        Curious as to what YOUR credentials are,Viriato?Bill Nye says he changed his position,but as of yet, what are the factors involved which made him fall in love with GMOs?Stay tuned science illiterates and all will be revealed when you buy Bill Nyes’ new revised book!Gimme a break!You would trust a science communicator/entertainer over someone who actually has a degree and understands biotechnology and is capable of reading studies??? Okaaay. Then you post”About that increasing number of Americans stat. Wasn’t there also a poll
        that showed 85% of Americans wanted to know if their food contained
        DNA? Think about that statement. What we have more than anything in this
        country is science illiteracy and you’re not helping that situation.” Okay,perhaps you could shed some light on the so-called poll you referenced? Who conducted your so called misleading,lets make fun of the average Joe American and call them all science illiterate, poll,btw? Martin’s claim as to working with globally recognized experts is spot on,however you turned it into your friends in medical biotech.Really?Then you state we should ask questions of scientists who work with the molecular biology of plants.WRONG,We should be asking questions of scientists who understand epidemiology,toxicology, nutrition and health.Conclusion;scientists who work with the molecular biology of plants know nothing of the health consequences of ingesting genetically engineered crops with herbicide residues and toxic pesticide proteins!

    • Joe Lokay

      Good points. I agree. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

    • rick

      Mr. Dagoberto:

      That lawsuit was two decades ago. Yes, some within the FDA at the time did express questions when the application of biotech to access genetic traits to incorporate into breeding programs was new and the regulation of the process was in its infancy. Certainly, there was uncertainty at the time as to what effect the insertion process might have collaterally on the genome that might disrupt gene regulation or might code for novel proteins. But our understandings and experience have advanced dramatically, and even if those concerns of FDA staff and officials were valid at the time, the degree of uncertainty has diminished over the past two decades. My understanding is we actually have fairly routine tools today to actually determine insertion points, to actaully read the genome to see what disruptions, if any, occur. We now now that genome changes occur with any form of plant breeding, and that any concerns are far more pronounced with mutgenisis.

      We also can measure and characterize any changes in food composition. We are well past the point of speculating whether ge or any other process for transferring traits disrupts the genome in a manner that increases the levels of toxins, carcinogens, anti-nutrients, metabolites, etc. that naturally occur, or if any novel proteins occur and means to characterize any for allergenic, toxic, or carcinogenic potential. Those that present any question, then you can present to rats or other animals to see if any health concerns materialize. But keep in mind we probably ingest several naturally-occuring chemicals in our food that are know toxins, carcinogens, etc. (e.g. solanine in tomatoes).

      I am open to someone actually finding harmful substances that are a result of genetic engineering. Why feed rats and arrive at a speculative, highly prone to error, ambiguous conclusions and as we saw with Seralini, frought with ability to manipulate. Why can’t somebody directly find the toxin that we assume must be there.

  • Duncan DeBunkerman

    The GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber claims of “science” are not real science at all. What they call science is actually cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science that rejects any facts or real science that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda to keep purposely hiding pesticide laden GMOs in the food we feed our families. This is the same kind of “science” the tobbaco industry used for years so they could keep selling poison to the public.

    The FACT is that they are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that they are. They are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt political agenda.

  • Ben Mark

    GAME OVER: GMO science fraud shattered by stunning investigative book worthy of Nobel Prize – Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.
    The science fraud game is over for the biotech mafia. After years of running its corporate con that pushed dangerous poisons into the food supply and the fragile environment, the biotech industry’s lies are now exposed and meticulously deconstructed in an exhaustively researched new book launching March 20.
    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048892_Altered_Genes_Twisted_Truth_biotech_science_fraud_Jane_Goodall.html#ixzz3U6JPsTMk

    • Data-driven

      How about anti-GMO advocates put their money where their mouth is and elicit respected domain-literate scientists (under the oversight of a balanced advisory board (Pro/Con)) to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled multi-year studies documenting the harmful effects of GMO foods on human health. The data(??) that exists now is laughable and embarrassingly bad and so off-topic it is hard to connect it to the real issue even with a truckload of velcro.

      Show us your independent, unbiased scientifically sound data and then we can talk. Otherwise, this is a witch hunt without any plausible reason to think there is a witch.

      If you want GMO-free food go to Whole Foods and elsewhere and pay for it. It’s your choice. Stop forcing your paranoia on the rest of us who know the science and see the absence of data supporting your argument. See paragraph 1.

      I volunteer to help design the study in paragraph 1. Let’s do this together side-by-side and end the mud-slinging once and for all. Any takers??

      I can hear the sound of a pin crashing to the floor……. monger-er

      • patzagame

        Well you will be getting your wish,its called Factor GMO.

  • AuntyMM

    the idea that people’s opinions should be subordinated to the judgments of anointed experts rather contradicts the theory of democratic self-government as well as the quality of our increasingly taylorized ‘educational’ system.
    those who claim that consumers are too stupid to understand the science are themselves actually too stupid to explain it to consumers in a persuasive way.

    • data_driven56

      You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Demonstrate and document that there is a legitimate negative impact of GMO’s on health. Show me the data! Peer-reviewed, ‘relevant’ data from well-designed studies done by independent sources only please. Before you send links please run through the checklist in the second to last sentence.

      There are literally hundreds of historical cases where people had opinions about something but data and science proved otherwise: earth as center of universe, blood-letting was good for you, intelligence could be determined by feeling the bumps on your cranium, blacks should be slaves. Should I keep going or do you get the point. Your opinion only matters when supported with evidence and after diligent thoughtful consideration.

      I will never understand electrical engineering. I won’t ever completely get it but I trust engineers and related experts. I don’t need to know how an MRI works to know that there are benefits to having one available and knowing they are safe as long as used appropriately.

      I know this is heresy but the average person is ignorant, including me on many topics. This should not be alarming but rather expected given the breadth of information to know. Again, I will never completely understand cosmology, or cosmetology, but I trust those who do given their work is subjected to peer review.

      • AuntyMM

        the material below is understandable by ordinary adults. can you clarify if by independent sources you mean those who have no financial interest? are you saying every expert is always right? how do you choose which experts to believe?

        Unaveling the DNA myth
        The spurious foundation of genetic engineering
        Barry Commoner in Harper’s
        Feb 2002

        Jeffrey M. Smith

        Genetic Roulette: The Documented
        Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Book)
        The biotech industry’s claim that
        genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered in this groundbreaking
        book. Nearly 65 health risks of the foods that Americans eat every day are
        presented in easy-to-read two-page spreads.

        Seeds of Deception (Book)
        Exposing industry and government
        lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating.

        The Soil Will Save Us: How scientists, farmers, and foodies
        are healing the soil to save the planet
        by Kristin Ohlson

        Krimsky, editor of The GMO
        Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government
        Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk. He is a
        professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University,
        as well as an adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Family
        Medicine at Tufts School of Medicine. Professor Krimsky is also a board member
        of the Council for Responsible Genetics.


        • Jeff Leonard

          Aunty M, “how do you choose which experts to believe”? I choose scientists with degrees from reputable institutions, decades of work in their fields, a proven track record of solid science, and obvious integrity. Apparently you choose self-promoting flying yogis with degrees from universities with a consciousness-based education system. Might be the reason for the disconnect?

          • AuntyMM

            i don’t think you bothered to read them.

  • Jackie Schmidts

    GMOs are safe to consume, for both humans and animals. For some intellectual easy reading, try this article. Dr. Smith knows her science! http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/26292/20141014/dr-margaret-smith-on-gmo-foods-not-all-bad-not-all-good

  • JMac

    Over 90% of GMO crops in use today are designed to be ROUNDUP READY.

    Roundup Ready means that crops such as corn, soy, canola, sugar beet, or cotton are: READY TO BE SPRAYED WITH ROUNDUP WEED KILLER AND SURVIVE while nearby weeds are killed.

    This allows Farmers can spray toxic Roundup weed killer DIRECTLY onto crops that will be turned into the food that you and your family eat.

    When someone is promoting GMO what they are actually promoting is ROUNDUP READY poison resistant crops. If you go strictly by the numbers, this is what GMO is all about. Or at least 90% about.

    These crops that are turned into your food have been genetically modified so that they can survive being sprayed directly with toxic Roundup weed killer. The poison is absorbed internally into every cell of the plant. It is then harvested, processed into food, and you eat it. So in other words, you are eating the poisoned plants that have been designed to survive absorbing a poison that would otherwise kill them. Does this sound like a good idea to you?

    Roundup is made up of the primary ingredient glyphosate, a chemical that very effectively kills all organism with a shikimate pathway. This includes both plants and microbes. Roundup also includes surfactants used to aid in the efficacy of glyphosate. One of the surfactants used Roundup are chemical compounds called siloxanes. Siloxanes are used in pharmaceutical drugs to penetrate the cell wall and get the drug into the cell more effectively. Glyphosate and siloxanes combine in Roundup to create a new molecule that is a hydrophobic substance. This new molecule is much more toxic to microbial cells than Glyphosate alone and easily penetrates the microbial cell wall.

    Prior to 2005, the formulation for agricultural grade Roundup produced was roughly 300 times more toxic than Glyphosate alone. In 2005 the surfactants were modified to include more powerful siloxanes, which created an even more toxic formulation than the previous permutation. After 2005 Roundup Weathermax Two is roughly one thousand times more toxic thanGlyphosate alone. In addition to the newly added siloxanes, oxalic acid wasadded as an adjuvant to make roundup work faster. Oxalic Acid speeds the glyphosate into plant and allows it to penetrated very quickly, delivering the glyphosate deep into the tissue of the plant.

    This chemical concoction is designed to kill plants by disrupting the shikimate pathway, which is the plants defense system, a plants version of an immune system. Roundup disrupts the shikimate pathway essentially giving the plant AIDS. Pathogens the plant could normally defend against infect the plant and kill it. So what’s the big deal? Roundup only kills organisms that have a shikimate pathway as their defense mechanism.

    Promoters of Roundup being sprayed directly on your food will tell you not to worry because human beings don’t have the shikimate pathway. But they are ignoring a very important point. More than 90% of the DNA in your body is not your own and belongs to microbes. They are the friendly microbes that you depend on. They make up the majority of your immune system and they extract minerals and enzymes from the food you eat and guess what? They have the shikimate pathway. Your friendly bacteria that maintain your health are the precise organisms that Roundup Weathermax Two was designed in a lab to kill. When you eat GMO food laced with trace amounts of this poison, it attacks those microbes. Roundup residue on the food you eat is literally killing the microbes within your body that you are dependent on for survival.

    What we as a society have the good fortune of having this toxic concoction of chemicals that is much more toxic than glyphosate alone being sprayed directly on to crops that we convert into food that we eat. There have been precisely zero studies done as to the toxicity of the entire Roundup formulation on mammals. ZERO. Tests have only been carried out on the primary ingredient glyphosate alone. And in addition to that, there have been precisely ZERO studies of the toxicity of this concoction to mammals when chronically exposed at low levels as most people in the United States are.

    If you live in the United States and consume GMO food on a daily basis, which most people do without even knowing it, you are ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every single day. If you eat foods that contain wheat, corn, soy, canola, or sugar and they are not organic you are eating the toxic herbicide Roundup Weathermax Two. This is a fact.

    There has never been one single safety study carried about by anyone to determine if ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every day for years is harmful to your health. These tests have never been done. NEVER. If you are eating GMO food, then you are the experiment. You are the lab rat who may get sick, may develop cancer, or may die from chronically ingesting this poison.

    You are the lab rat.

  • Julian Miller

    Lableling of GMO’s should be implemented on the federal levl but as usual Vermont leads the nation forward. Labeling is science in action. Knowing the ingredients, fats or tranfats, protein, vitamins and now GMO’s is good for scientists, people with allergies, people on diets, researchers, athletes and everyone else. Labeling foods is a essential and gives a useful scientific insight into our diet. The rest of the civilized world labels GMO’s and now Vermont leads the way in the US. Congratulations Vermont! I wish my state had half the wisdom yours does.

    Is corn with a gene tuned on to glow in the dark
    or build in pesticides
    or with built in pharmaceuticals the same as regular corn?
    No! Genetically engineered corn should be labeled Corn (GMO). It’s simple.

    Why would anyone object to knowing if some lab worker shot in an experimental gene that had never ever been in corn or any natural product? Knowing that your corn has genes from bacteria, a virus, a centipede, monkey, pig or human is something that most people especially research scientists would like to know. Why hide that fact from consumers?

    Is putting in any genes in food ok?

    GMO corn is already heavily engineered. What will it be like in 2 years, 5, 10, etc. Without GMO labeling at what point do we decide that this GMO corn with a variety of genes from insects, viruses, bacteria, and aardvarks can no longer be called just corn.

    If genetic engineering can do wonders can’t it also by accident or on purpose be used to create foods that cause allergies, indigestion or death or even be used to engineer viruses for bioterrorism? The answer is yes. People have a right to know. Labeling GMO’s is a good idea. Why hide constantly changing genetically engineered foods? Why not label them now and be done with this otherwise eternal question.

    Labeling GMO’s is easy, just like putting the ingredient Corn on a label now manufacturers will instead need to add Corn (GMO). It’s a tiny amount of ink on the label, simple and not a big deal. They already do it all over Europe and the same foods there cost less then here in the US.

    When labeling was proposed a hundred years ago manufacturers of food at that time loudly complained that they had the right to put anything they wanted into processed foods. The evolution of labeling is just continuing. Opposing GMO labeling is ludicrous and mostly backed by Monsanto and DOW who also loudly say people don’t have the right to know it’s GMO and worry labeling would affect their bottom line. GMO labeling is essential and is science in action.