Hundreds of millions of public and private funds have been spent since the mid-1990’s when GMO foods were first released for human consumption. Most Americans were unaware at the time that FDA scientists had issued numerous warnings about the need for more robust food safety and risk assessments, which weren’t done prior to release into the US food supply. Unfortunately politics and profit ultimately prevailed over health safety, and Americans have been very ill-informed about much of the food they are putting on their family dining tables.
Why is our government balking at requiring plain English text for accurate disclosure of food ingredients directly on food package labels in their latest Agriciultural Marketing Service food disclosure proposal? Why don’t they want to permit the use of “GMO” and “nonGMO” , already widely understood and in common use on food packaging by many companies to inform consumers about the food they are buying in supermarkets? Since many companies already are providing the consumer this desired information…what is our government hiding when it doesn’t want us to read plain English text on food labels and use QR computer code? The purity and quality of the food we eat should not be symbolized by a contrived “smiley BE-faced symbol” as some in government have proposed, especially when it potentially covers up toxic pesticides and other chemicals in such foods. Websites can also be listed on the label for additional manufacturer information as is already common practice. Consumers should not be required to have and use a smartphone to read QR computer code, when package text labeling is readily available to everyone in the grocery aisles for health and family-conscientious consumer.
Here’s a summary and Take Action plan courtesy of the Center For Food Safety : USDA’s Proposed Rule on GMO Food Labeling
“On May 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited proposed regulations for the mandatory disclosure of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE). These rules will implement the 2016 federal law requiring those GE disclosures, establishing many details on how the disclosures will be implemented. The rules are the final step in a decades-long process of demanding and securing GE food labeling in the United States at the state and now at the federal level. As such, public comment will be extremely important. The importance of comments is even further magnified by the fact that the USDA proposal presents a range of alternatives and makes few decisions, leaving uncertainty about the final outcome on critical points. Some of the more important issues along with recommended responses are detailed below. Comments are due July 3, 2018. “
With this proposed new Federal Food Disclosure rule, Genetically Modified (GMO) labeling is in the process of a consumer unfriendly hijacking attempt by political powers/special interest maneuverings — putting USDA officially in the driver’s seat to cover up misaligned FDA food labeling – all the while exposing consumers to more toxins in supermarket foods and continued escalation of health care costs by denying consumers the right to know what’s in our food. If our government isn’t listening to consumers, at least some companies are more sensitive to what the consumer wants to know about their food by already labeling nonGMO! Who is kidding whom??? Avoiding consumption of toxic substances and family health care costs are significant and timely pressing matters which don’t deserve outsourcing to PR departments and other marketing shenanigans to muddle the information about what is in our food. Take action now by clicking here to comment on this proposal.
For more details and information you may visit: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/2018-proposed-ge-labeling-rule-talking-points
This GE salmon is likely one of the earlier reasons that the labeling laws are being switched from FDA to USDA- Against extraordinary levels of public opposition, the antibiotic-laden GMO salmon application apparently had to be squeezed in as a “New Drug Application” under the Center for Veterinary Medicine umbrella because there was no animal procedure in place for it under FDA regs at the time. Also there are quite a few current genetic manipulation technologies like Gene Editing (CRISPR) being vigorously promoted despite continuing problems and risks.