The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The Senate’s return from a spring break recess this week marked a resumption of efforts to find a final resolution to the food policy matter that consumer groups and food and agribusiness industries alike count as a top priority for resolution this year. . . .
. . . .
In the letter to senators unveiled Tuesday, those supporting mandatory labeling laid out their terms for support of a federal law as follows:
• Requires mandatory labeling
• Food products must be labeled as genetically engineered when .9% or more of the product’s total weight are produced from genetic engineering.
• Requires labels to identify, via words visible on the package, the food or ingredients in the food as “genetically engineered”, “produced with genetic engineering” or “partially produced with genetic engineering”.
• Requires labels to be on all foods that are genetically engineered and the definition of “genetic engineering” should be identical to the definition of “modern biotechnology” as recognized by Codex Alimentarius. . . .
. . . .
. . . [O]n the pro-labeling side, infighting is pitting stalwarts who want to hold the line and allow Vermont and other states to move forward with labeling efforts against some who say a federal standard is the best way forward. Hirshberg himself is under attack by some of his brethren in the labeling battle.
Read full, original post: It’s Round 2 in GMO Labeling Fight