The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . . . [W]hat horrifies organic corporations and the Deniers for Hire they fund, such as US Right To Know and SourceWatch, is real transparency, like what pesticides were used in the growing process. That’s something the public wants transparency about a lot more than GMOs.
In their Journal of Risk Research paper, the scholars asked 450 participants to read one of four fictitious news articles detailing an agro-food company’s decision about labeling the GM content of their food products. The mock articles varied on. . . the decision whether or not to label the presence of ingredients grown from GM seeds, and whether or not the company considered the public’s input as part of their deliberations. . . .
They found a significantly more positive reaction to a decision — regardless of whether it was to label or not — when people believed the company engaged with the public and used their input. . . .
A fairer process is what people want, and only the fringes will scream about a conspiracy if they don’t get it. So groups who care about labels should include the number of pesticides used, along with what chemicals are in fertilizers. It won’t stop people from buying organic to know how many toxic chemicals went into their food, it will likely make them happier when they know procedural justice has been served.
So it is a surprise Big Organic does not embrace real transparency in labeling.
Read full, original post: Transparency: Why Organic Groups Shouldn’t Block Accurate Food Labels
