The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
My research shows that when people are directly asked how they want the issue of GMO labeling to be decided, they do not defer to politicians or their fellow citizens. In a survey last May, a strong majority, 61%, preferred to put the matter to experts at the Food and Drug Administration. . . .
Lost in the politics is a deeper debate about the future of our food system. At the core of many anti-GMO arguments lies . . . a desire for food that is purportedly more in line with nature. . . .
The truth is that what we eat today differs radically from the food eaten even a few hundred years ago. . . .precisely because we did not accept only what nature provided.
Biotechnology has the potential to improve what we eat in a similar manner—if we embrace progress. What is most worrisome about Vermont’s labeling law isn’t the direct costs of labeling; it’s the advance of a food philosophy and a market environment hostile to new crop technologies.
What innovations will we forego if the risks of investing in research and development are heightened even further by activism and litigation? . . . .
. . . .
The next generation of innovation is just around the corner: apples that will not brown, potatoes that produce fewer carcinogens when fried, staple crops in the developing world fortified with micronutrients, field crops in the Midwest that require less nitrogen fertilizer.
Food manufactures today may be reluctant to label foods made using biotechnology. But one day soon, when the fad against GMOs fades, they might be clamoring to add the tag: proudly produced with genetic engineering.
Wall Street Journal subscribers can read the full, original article here: Can I Get That With Extra GMO?