The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
I believe in transparency in the food system. However, information must be meaningful to be useful. . . .
That is why keeping open the option of QR codes. . . looks promising. People care about GMOs because they are concerned about . . . healthfulness . . .and . . . environmental sustainability . . . Establishing this. . . requires more than a GMO/non-GMO label.
A fuller disclosure might tell you that the crop had an insect-resistance trait that allowed fewer insecticides to be sprayed . . . . Or . . . that a herbicide-tolerant crop was grown using glyphosate, and spell out the pluses and minuses. . .
The problem with a straight “GMO” label is that it appears to many as a health warning, yet we know . . . that there are no health concerns about GMO technology. . . .
Share this article
. . . .
. . . . The most potent argument that the anti-GMO activists ever came up with is the “public right to know,” . . .
Defusing this issue means putting as much information as possible into the public domain. Telling people that experts say their food is safe does not help . . . in today’s cynical world. People will only feel . . . that their food is safe when they are able to choose what they eat.
Read full, original post: Time for a compromise on GMO labelling
