Foodie critic atttacks Scientific American’s anti-labeling editorial

| | November 6, 2013
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

In a Civil Eats post responding to Scientific American‘s anti-labeling editorial, Ralph Loglisci, former Project Director for the Johns Hopkins Healthy Monday Project, writes that if GMOs are safe to eat, the agriculture companies should be labeling them. Loglisci, a food and health policy writer, argues that Scientific American‘s claim that Americans would be confused by GMO labels is insulting to consumers. He also notes that several other countries have either mandated labeling or banned GMOs altogether, due to health concerns.

If [Scientific American] editors believe, as poll after poll show, that the 93 percent of Americans who support GMO labeling are making their decision based on irrational fears, then they should work harder to convince them that their fears are truly baseless, rather than supporting efforts to deny people the right to truth, transparency, and trust. We can never expect to have a strong democracy, or an enlightened consumer-base for that matter, if we do not ensure citizens are making well-informed decisions.

Read the full, original story here: “Scientific American Editors’ GMO Labeling Stance Insults Americans”

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend