Stonyfield founder Gary Hirshberg leverages ‘Vandana Shiva Affair’ to promote GMO labeling

| | August 29, 2014
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Michael Specter’s essay in The New Yorker against labeling genetically engineered food is fraught with factual errors, and it misses the fundamental point that people not only want to know what’s in their food, but also how it’s grown.

Sadly, while conceding that GE labeling is inevitable, his arguments are not only filled with falsehoods, but they add nothing new to the debate that has become America’s biggest current food fight.

As a matter of government policy, if an ingredient poses a food safety hazard, we don’t label it, we take it out. So if we were making a safety argument, we’d be advocating banning GE ingredients, not labeling them.  

The reason we need to label genetically engineered ingredients is to allow the marketplace to function, i.e., to allow consumers to choose foods based on how they were grown. 

Labeling GE crops does not seek to stop progress. It simply will allow all of us to choose what’s in our food and how it’s grown. 

Read full original postSpecter’s New Yorker GMO labeling essay misses the mark

Related article:  Peddlers of disinformation shape GMO discourse
Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend