Is labeling of genetically engineered foods a losing proposition?

As Joe Six-pack munches Fritos and popcorn during the opening games of the NFL season, does he care what variety of corn was used to make them? Should he? Should the government require labels that tell him?

 

 

Most rational people would say no. But Californiaโ€™s Proposition 37, which will appear on the stateโ€™s ballot in November, would create just such a requirement. Supporters claim it is a simple measure designed to provide useful information to consumers about so-called genetically engineered (โ€œGEโ€) foods. It is not, and the deceptive measure fails every test, from science and economics to law and common sense.

View the original article here: Is labeling of genetically engineered foods a losing proposition?

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosateโ€”the world's most heavily-used herbicideโ€”pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels donโ€™t tell the whole story.
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole
Farmers can talk to plants
Farmers are a major source of misinformationโ€”about farming

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.