The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . .OTA has supported efforts to bring federal mandatory GMO labeling to the United States. . . .
Senators. . . recently. . . introduced a federal labeling bill that not only requires disclosure of GMO ingredients, but also includes important provisions for organic farmers and food makers . . . .
. . . .
So, what was specifically at risk for organic?
- The risk of conventional products. . . carrying a . . .misleading . . . non-GMO claim in the marketplace. Think conventional milk labeled non-GMO at a rock bottom price point because livestock feed is exempted. . . .
- The risk of any products containing meat as a minor ingredient from doing the same
- The . . . risk of organic products being unable to make a legal non-GMO claim in the market due to . . . conflicting policies from FDA and USDA.
- The risk of . . . defining biotechnology so that the National Organic Program’s ability to define GMOs as . . . inclusive of new technologies like gene editing . . .
. . . . Not protecting the core value of the organic label would have been . . . wrong for an association whose . . . mission is to protect the value of organic. . . . .Each of these risks were mitigated in the proposed statute. . . .
Read full, original post: Achieving our mission: taking the long view on GMO labeling and organic