I posted earlier, but forgot to mention this. Another reason why I support I-522 even though I don't think it's ideal, is that the minor changes in infrastructure will pave the way for more educational labeling.
For instance, you know how there was a recent study done by Washington State Academy of Sciences (WSAS), that said labeling would increase costs to consumers (of unknown amount). Here's the major takeaway:
"The group concluded that the cost of labeling itself will be negligible, but that food producers are likely to incur extra expenses from having to separate genetically engineered ingredients from other foods."
Again, I think that's good. Any food producers that trade with the 64 other countries who have labeling laws (Japan, China, Mexico, India, Russia, Brazil, Great Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc..) already do this.
With more and more new GE/GMO products waiting to hit the market, we should have a system in place to keep them separate. Bt Corn is not Corn if a company can patent the seed and sue farmers for patent infringement if it spreads into their fields. Right?
Like you said, I'd rather see Bt Corn listed in my ingredients (if they can patent it because it's unique, than it should have a unique name) then "contains GMO" on the front of the package. But where I disagree, is that I think it is a good first step for consumer awareness, education and empowerment.
I'm not anti-GMO. I think products should be evaluated on a product-by-product basis. I only wish the companies involved would open their products up to be evaluated by independent researchers who could conduct thorough long-term studies on their safety. Six month studies done by the company who is manufacturing the product (current requirement from the FDA) is not adequate. Using the public for long-term testing without their awareness and consent seems wrong to me.
So while the "contains GMO" label is not detailed. It doesn't at least give consumers the right to consent on a broad level.
Last login: Saturday, October 12, 2013