The GLP is committed to full transparency. Download and review our just-released 2019 Annual Report.

How USDA defines GMOs will determine if mandatory labeling is a success

| | August 2, 2016

 

The problem with the debate is that it is a very scientific and complex issue that most laymen just don’t understand. . . .

. . . .

One failing of the bill is that even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that the definition of “bioengineering” in the bill is too narrow and would not apply to many foods that come from genetically engineered sources. One very controversial issue revolves around “gene-editing”  which is simply genetic engineering through which DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome of an organism using engineered nucleases, and has been used in biomedical research and medicine. Controversial as this science is not covered under the bill.

The . . . . (USDA) has two years to write the rules. A lot can happen in two years. Research in the safety of genetic engineering might get us information that proves it is safer than we think, or just the opposite. Breakthroughs in genetic engineering might give our foods healing powers that can cure disease or obesity. Or it can give both sides of the debate time to find loopholes or lobby our next administration for change.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Sorry Food Industry, The Historic GMO Food Labeling Bill Is Anything But

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend