02-27-2015, 04:21 PM
I'm quite familiar with the science, am more interested in people's views, as this is our own little slice of the "War on Science", the cover story for National Geographic this month.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/0...nbach-text
For GMO food, one side wants complete scientific guarantees of the safety (an impossible task), while the other side points out that no scientific evidence demonstrates any health risks (although FDA review is strictly voluntary). Science can be used to support either the largely hands-off approach of the US or the strict pre-market review and labeling requirements of Japan.
This is why we got to enjoy local transgenic Rainbow papaya over a decade before Japan, and why it is the predominate variety here, but only a small fraction of the papaya market there.
IMHO, GMO labeling is a middle ground allowing for individuals to make their own choices, based on whatever mix of factors are important to them, and the market forces will decide the pricing and availability. What is the harm in having more detailed ingredient information available?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/0...nbach-text
For GMO food, one side wants complete scientific guarantees of the safety (an impossible task), while the other side points out that no scientific evidence demonstrates any health risks (although FDA review is strictly voluntary). Science can be used to support either the largely hands-off approach of the US or the strict pre-market review and labeling requirements of Japan.
This is why we got to enjoy local transgenic Rainbow papaya over a decade before Japan, and why it is the predominate variety here, but only a small fraction of the papaya market there.
IMHO, GMO labeling is a middle ground allowing for individuals to make their own choices, based on whatever mix of factors are important to them, and the market forces will decide the pricing and availability. What is the harm in having more detailed ingredient information available?