31.12.69

This month, Whole Foods became the first retailer in the country to announce that it would require its more than 300 stores to label all food containing genetically modified ingredients.

The move, to be phased in over five years, marked the latest salvo in a decades-long, global fight over the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as corn, cotton and soybeans in food. As the use of GMOs in a variety of products has proliferated, so has the argument over whether they are safe for humans and the environment, whether they deserve more scrutiny from regulators and how they should be labeled.

The biotech industry has argued that GMO technologies are a safe way to reduce plant disease, increase crop yields and create a more efficient global food supply. The Food and Drug Administration has said there is no meaningful difference between foods that use organic ingredients and their genetically modified counterparts. Meanwhile, consumer groups and public health activists have continued to raise questions about the long-term effects of genetic manipulation and to push for mandatory labeling requirements throughout the country.

Source: VOXXI

by Circles Robinson

HAVANA TIMES — Critics of genetically modified foods have won a victory in California by securing enough signatures to place a referendum on the November ballot that could force food manufacturers to label food products containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing genetically modified corn and soy, but companies do not currently have to inform consumers.

We speak to David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, about GMOs, fair trade, the U.S. war on hemp, and the company’s support of Palestinian olive oil producers

AMY GOODMAN: Critics of genetically modified foods have won a victory in California by securing enough signatures to place a referendum on next November’s ballot that would force food manufacturers to label products containing GMOs. Nearly one million people signed petitions, nearly double the amount needed. If California voters pass the referendum, it could affect industry labeling practices across the country. Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing genetically modified corn and soy, but companies do not currently have to inform consumers....

Read more...

by Tom Wakeford

GM polarised arguments into one of two camps. On one side was the government, the research councils, the chemical and biotechnology industries, National Farmers Union and, initially at least, the main supermarkets. These GM promoters attempted to persuade the UK public that the technology was a natural progression from traditional breeding. It would quickly, they claimed, increase crop yields, reduce food prices and even provide new cures for disease.

On the other side were environmentalists, consumer groups, organic farmers and a minority of bioscientists, who denied some or all of these benefits. Many argued there was even a danger of an unstoppable ecological disaster by the process of horizontal gene transfer – a theme picked up in a dystopian BBC drama co-written by the Guardian’s editor and aired in prime time during 2002.   

The pro-GM lobby argued that GM scepticism among the public was largely down to their ignorance. A small group of us begged to differ. Beginning in 1998, we staged a series of deliberative public dialogues in the UK and abroad. These hearings were designed to allow a cross section of the population to express their views, having been informed by a range of arguments and evidence.

Read more...