The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The Oregon House [February 17] passed a measure requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish.
. . . .
Supporters of the labeling requirement said it would allow consumers to choose conventional fish if they had doubts about the health or environmental safety of biotech salmon, which the federal government approved last year.
. . . .
Genetically engineered salmon will likely be cheaper than wild-caught fish from Oregon, so labeling will allow consumers to support their local industry, said Val Hoyle, D-Eugene.
“If they don’t understand the difference, they will just buy the fish that is less expensive,” she said.
Rep. John Davis, R-Wilsonville, said the bill was premature because the U.S. isn’t importing the biotech salmon from Canada until the Food and Drug Administration decides whether to require labeling.
Share this article
The Oregon fishing industry is also free to label its fish as being wild-caught or non-genetically engineered, said Rep. Mike Nearman, R-Dallas.
“There’s simply not a need for this to be done as a matter of state law,” he said.
The bill was originally proposed as a means to give local governments in Oregon the power to regulate biotech crops.
Biotech critics claim that local ordinances are necessary to prevent cross-pollination between transgenic, conventional and organic crops because the state and federal governments have failed to act on the issue.
Opponents of the proposal argued that it would complicate farming across county lines, reduce crop options and put a strain on local governments that would have to enforce such ordinances.
However, the original language of the bill was “gutted and stuffed” at the committee level with a labeling requirement for genetically engineered fish.
Read full, original post: House passes mandatory labeling of genetically modified salmon
