Loss for consumer

In his letter Pass GMO label bill , lifelong dairy farmer John H. Scott misrepresents the GMO labeling bill, which is clearly designed as a win for the industry and a big loss for the consumer.

It contains a clause headed Prohibitions Against Mandatory Labeling of Food Developed Using Bioengineering that prohibits state laws in this regard, but the bill does not prescribe any federal laws to cover this area.

In fact, the bill would continue to allow the term natural to be used for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Scott's assertion that the proposed legislation would ensure proper testing of GMOs by the FDA is completely wrong. The FDA has not conducted any scientific testing of GMOs to date and I see nothing in the proposed legislation that would change this.

The FDA has approved GMOs on the basis that they are substantially the same as non-GMOs. Since GMOs are all patented, they cannot logically be substantially the same as non-GMOs; otherwise, a patent could not be granted.

Furthermore, the bill would impose onerous and costly procedures on organic producers, who would have to prove that their entire supply chain, from seed to distribution, is certifiably GMO-free.

The legislation would exempt inadvertent contamination, so GMO producers would conveniently have no liability for corrupting organic crops.

Philip J. Medway

Brentwood

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

Visit link:
Loss for consumer