VT law made GMO labeling inevitable, Senate version is reasonable compromise

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

. . . . [I]t appears the stars may be aligning such that a nationwide mandatory GMO labeling will become a reality.

. . . .

. . . . Neither side got everything they wanted, but . . . this is a law that provides some form of labeling, which will hopefully shelve this issue and allow us to move on to more important things. . .

I’m sympathetic to the arguments made by folks who . . . oppose mandatory labeling on the premise that our laws shouldn’t be stigmatizing biotechnology.  . . . I agree the law is unhelpful insofar as giving consumers useful information about safety or environmental impact. . . .

Related on the SLP

Food scientist Bruce Chassy: Although some GMO sympathizers embrace labeling, it’s a disaster in waiting As Congress dickers over GMO labeling, Brazil may offer path forward

Ahead of the midterms, Meta has paid at least 29 anti-LGBTQ accounts for their posts

Viewpoint: RFK Jr.’s stacked FDA advisory council endorses multicancer screening test from ethically- questionable company that would increase false positives and waste billions of dollars

Viewpoint: The price Americans pay for science denialism

But, here’s the deal.  The Vermont law was soon going into effect anyway. The question wasn’t whether a mandatory labeling law was going into effect but rather what kind. . . .

The worst economic consequences of mandatory labeling would have come about from . . . labels that were most likely to be perceived by consumers as a “skull and cross bones”.   In my mind the current Senate bill avoided this worst case scenario while giving those consumers who really want to know about GMO content a means for making that determination. . . .

Read full, original post: Mandatory GMO Labeling Closer to Reality