The push for GMO labeling has been the most successful in New England states so far: Vermont became the first state to pass a GMO labeling law in May; Connecticut and Maine both have inactive GMO labeling laws that will take effect if four other states in the region also enact GMO labeling laws. Massachusetts state legislators are currently considering a GMO labeling bill.
Now, the region’s largest and most influential newspaper, the liberal Boston Globe, has taken a stand against GMO labeling. It follows in the footsteps of other major liberal news organizations serving regions where there has been a strong push for GMO labeling such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Oregonian.
The New York Times wrote in March 2013:
Any private company has the right to require its suppliers to meet labeling standards it chooses to set, and consumers have a right to know what’s in the food they are buying. But there is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers. … For now, there seems little reason to make labeling compulsory.
Scientific American spoke out strongly against mandatory GMO labeling in August 2013:
Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people’s health [see “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food”]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods.
The Washington Post endorsed the safety of GMO foods in June 2014:
Related on the SLP
There is no mainstream scientific evidence showing that foods containing GMOs are any more or less harmful for people to consume than anything else in the supermarket, despite decades of development and use. If that doesn’t convince some people, they have the option of simply buying food bearing the “organic” label. There is no need for the government to stigmatize products with a label that suggests the potential for harm.
Here are excerpts from the Boston Globe‘s recent editorial speaking against GMO labeling:
Advances in crop biotechnology over the past 20 years have multiplied the range of so-called genetically engineered foods in the average citizen’s diet. Despite reassurances from the international and US scientific community about the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the anti-GMO movement continues to gain ground, and has arrived at the state Legislature in the form of a proposal that would create new food-labeling regulations. But until there is a solid scientific reason to believe that genetically modified crops are unhealthy, a labeling requirement would only serve to confuse consumers.
The bill, proposed by state Representative Ellen Story, would require all foods that fall under the broad category of GMOs to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering,” without identifying specific GMO ingredients. Advocates say it would alert those who may object to genetically modified foods to choose other options. But the mere fact of a label would contribute to the stigmatization of food that is actually perfectly healthy. Besides, there’s already an easy solution for the GMO-wary buyer: Labels that tout foods that are not genetically modified. …
A professor from Cornell University conducted a study, albeit sponsored by the food industry, predicting a GMO labeling law could increase food costs for a family of four in the Northeast by $224 to $800 per year, with an average of $500. As for Vermont, lawmakers estimate it would cost the Green Mountain State around $8 million just to defend the law.
That’s a steep price to give consumers virtually no useful information. Many foods are manipulated for sensible reasons through genetic engineering. A GMO labeling law would only drive consumers to more expensive products that would not necessarily be any healthier for them.
Read the full, original article: GMO labeling bill lacks a scientific justification
Additional Resources:
