The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . . [T]here’s no such thing as a GMO, except in the fevered imagination of bureaucrats. . . and activists. The bipartisan “compromise” on GMO labeling . . . includes [an] . . . unscientific, politically motivated hodge-podge of products that makes . . . no sense. For example, corn or soybeans modified with recombinant-DNA . . . techniques would need to be labeled, while oils from them would not.
. . . . [T]he new legislation covers labeling only if a food “contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant . . . (DNA) techniques” and “for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.” Older techniques and . . . the newest gene-editing techniques would be exempt.
. . . .
Related on the SLP
All the hoopla over the labeling legislation is likely to be for naught. Its arbitrary, unscientific scope makes it extremely unlikely that the new legislation is constitutional. . . the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that labeling mandates are “compelled commercial speech,” subject to “strict scrutiny” to ensure they don’t run afoul of the . . . First Amendment. . . [W]ithout some compelling state interest, such as ensuring consumer safety. . . a requirement to label foods that contain “genetically engineered” ingredients, as defined, is unlikely to survive the strict-scrutiny standard.
Read full, original post: What’s in a Name? Plenty, if It’s a ‘GMO.’
