Controversy continues to rage over whether foods from genetically engineered plants should have to be labeled as such. The battle has been fought in the media, in state legislatures, through referendum issues and in federal courts. Most mandatory-labeling proposals have failed, and none is in effect.
New York Times nutrition and health columnist Jane Brody recently penned a mostly accurate piece about genetic engineering, “Fears, Not Facts, Support GMO-Free Food.” She recapitulated the overwhelming evidence for the importance and safety of products from GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms” (which for the sake of accuracy, we prefer to call organisms modified with molecular genetic engineering techniques, or GE).
The gratuitous controversy continues over whether foods from plants and animals that have been genetically engineered should be labeled as such. The battle has been fought in the media, in state legislatures, through referendum issues, and in federal courts. Most labeling proposals have failed.
The newly approved, genetically engineered “Innate” brand of potato is quite remarkable. It is bruise resistant and contains 50 to 70 percent less asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a presumptive carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures. The advantage of lower levels of acrylamide is obvious, but the bruise resistance is important to sustainability because of the potential to decrease waste.
Vandana Shiva advocates policies that will inflict widespread poverty, malnutrition, and death on the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.
The United Nations agency that sets food standards—the Codex Alimentarius—recently reached an impasse on the labeling of food containing products derived from recombinant DNA technology...
