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. . . .
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