Christian Science Monitor
By Daniel B. Wood | 08:25 am
"Another multimillion-dollar fight over a ballot initiative — with big implications for the country — is brewing here in California. The initiative, which is on the ballot this November, has a mouthful of a name: the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”
If Proposition 37 passes, California will become the first state in the nation to require that food manufacturers appropriately label all food — raw and processed — that contain ingredients made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That term refers to scientific procedures that have altered the genetic material in various organisms.
Proponents say that consumers have a right to know what kinds of food they are buying and eating, while opponents say it would produce a system too burdensome on food sellers and distributors and needlessly costly to consumers. ......."
Being in California, I find that unnecessary - organic ("No GMO ingredients" or "USDA Organic") is always written on the organic food anyway. There is no necessity to write another one on it. Companies are almost all smart enough to market the fact that it is organic. People do get organic whenever they can here - it is a big and growing market.
The gist of all this is whether people think people are smart enough to look for organic certification on the packaging. And this is not simply a yes or no question, because if you think people are observant and make policy accordingly, you are also giving a chance for less observant people incentive to get observant.
Conversely, GMO labeling would eliminate benefits of reading existing organic labels.
Labels also don't look very nice.
Having said that, it's not all bad. GMO food manufacturers would never otherwise put "GMO" labels on packaging, because it might do a bit to scare people.
Whatever the outcome, it's great that people are talking about this and consider highlighting the difference between them.
No comments:
Post a Comment