I’m a couple of days late with this post, but maybe you didn’t know . . . . I did post something on the bill H.R. 1599 – Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. On July 14, 2015 it was ordered to be reported (amended) by voice vote.
A reuters.com’s article has a headline on the approval of the anti-GMO labeling law.
From my perspective H.R. 1599 is neither anti-GMO nor a law.
I think the news service’s headline is misleading.
Our ability to communicate with headlines, acronyms, and tweets allows for more access to a bigger misinformation machine — the systems provide smaller informative bits, but overwhelm the consumer is riding an evergreen machine of misinformation. News services lead on and contribute to this garbage heap daily. See this article as a case in point.
With the mess already established in labeling and “nutrition facts,” the article cited steeps itself in missing the mark. Maybe not. I don’t know the article’s intention or should I say the headline’s intention? Readership. That pretty much sums it up. But should I be an audience?
I am.
Astonished, as usual. Bioengineering products embedded to be consumed as food are keeping up with the rise of diseases. Some would say these bioengineered products don’t necessarily cause cancer, but correlations have been drawn between certain bioengineered products and the rise in over 22 chronic diseases. Check out the graphs here. Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America.
Quoting from the article cited earlier:
“Opponents [ to GMO labeling ] say mandatory labeling would raise food prices, confuse consumers without cause as GMOs are well regulated and are no less safe or nutritious than foods made with non-GMO ingredients.”
I’m confused why the GMO labeling is not happening. GMOs are probably more in the “voluntarily” regulated category than the “well” regulated category. Speaking in weasel words like “no less safe or nutritious” immediately creates cause for concern.