Many were surprised when California, a state that has become known for having some of the most liberal policy, voted no on a ballot initiative regarding the labeling of GMO food. This had done little to quell the anti-GMO movement as more and more potential legislation is being brought to the table (no pun intended) that would require genetically modified food to be labeled as such. Those in favor of the labeling fear the potential effects of GMO food on human health and the planet. Those against argue that mankind has been modifying the genes of plants and animals through selective breeding since the dawn of agriculture and in vitro genetic modification is no different than selective breeding.
A group within the anti-labeling believes that no hearts
will be won through perceived obfuscation. The distrust of GMOs is
understandable. Many people do not understand it and when multimillion dollar corporations
like Monsanto and DuPont can spend $46 million lobbying against disclosure it
is easy to see how the public can presume guilt. The GMO advocates in favor of
labeling suggest voluntarily labeling products to regain the trust of
consumers. There is no doubt that companies like Monsanto have a huge public
relations problem when they have a section of their website dedicated to invalidating
rumors and conspiracies about their company. A step towards full disclosure and
client education would go a long way in repairing their perception.
I am anti-gmo food for the most part. The only case for which I would be in favor for gmo's would be to feed people in developing nations, were farming supplies are limited and drought and other harsh environmental factors affect crops. Regardless of how one feels about gmo's, consumer should have the right to know how their food is produced.
ReplyDelete