Petition demands US label genetically engineered food

October 5, 2011 by Robert MacPherson
A test is performed on GMO corn. Supporters and producers of organic foods petitioned the US government Tuesday for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, and encouraged consumers to go online and join the cause.

Supporters and producers of organic foods petitioned the US government Tuesday for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, and encouraged consumers to go online and join the cause.

The 21 petitioners want the (FDA) to use the full power of the law to ensure that consumers know when they are buying food made with genetically modified ingredients.

"The absence of mandatory labeling disclosures for genetically engineered foods is misleading to consumers," says the 25-page legal petition, drafted by lawyers at the non-profit Center for in Washington.

"The requested actions are necessary to prevent economic fraud, and to protect consumers who are deceived by thinking the absence of labeling means the absence of genetically engineered foods."

To pile on the pressure, organizers launched a website, justlabelit.org, on Tuesday where the American public can "flood" the FDA with a pre-written comment in support of the petition.

"Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world," the prepared comment says.

"As an American, I firmly believe I should also have the right to know if my foods have been genetically engineered."

Not part of the petition effort, but echoing its message, is a 16-day march from New York to Washington via Philadelphia and Baltimore that is calling for "genuine transparency" and labeling for genetically engineered foods.

It aims to reach the gates of the White House on October 16.

The quest for labeling is likely to be resisted by big names in the , including Monsanto. It scored points in Europe last month when the European Court of Justice ruled that EU member states must notify Brussels before banning genetically modified crops.

Ken Cook, executive director of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit group that put its name to the petition, told AFP there is overwhelming public support for labeling genetically engineered foods.

"Most of the polls I've seen are 80 to 90 percent and above in favor of labeling," Cook said Tuesday. "There is tremendous public support and it is time to focus (that support) on the FDA."

"The founding principle of the United States is that the consumer is always right," he added, stressing that campaigners are not demanding an outright ban on genetically engineered food.

Producers of organic meat, chicken, dairy products and seeds, and their industry associations including the Vermont-based Organic Trade Association, make up the majority of petitioners.

"These companies are of the view that they can produce very high quality food" without using genetically altered ingredients, Cook said. "There is an economic interest here, but we see this as another way to 'green' the economy."

Responding to questions by email, an FDA spokeswoman told AFP that the agency had not yet "officially" received the petition, but that it expected to do so "shortly."

"Foods derived from plants must meet the same safety and legal standards as foods derived from their non-genetically engineered counterparts," she added.

"Producers and manufacturers are free to include information in product indicating whether their product is or is not produced using genetic engineering, so long as the information is truthful and not misleading."

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Big Data can save lives, says leading cancer expert

May 16, 2016

The sharing of genetic information from millions of cancer patients around the world could be key to revolutionising cancer prevention and care, according to a leading cancer expert from Queen's University Belfast.

New soap to ward off malaria carrying mosquitoes

May 13, 2016

(Medical Xpress)—Gérard Niyondiko along with colleagues Frank Langevin and Lisa Barutel has posted a project on the crowd source funding site ulule for a product called Faso Soap. They claim the soap can cut in half the ...

Smartphones uncover how the world sleeps

May 6, 2016

A pioneering study of worldwide sleep patterns combines math modeling, mobile apps and big data to parse the roles society and biology each play in setting sleep schedules.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

xznofile
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
Except for reducing the plant gene pool (& thus overall plant diversity) thus making it ALL dependent on technology and financial backing, I don't see anything wrong w/ GE food itself. If the playing field were level, that is, if consumers had a choice, the costs of GE and non-GE food would even out, and there'd be no incentive to produce it. As it is, it's cheaper to produce GE food, but those savings to the consumer are either hidden, or skimmed off by the producers to benefit from the going price. I mean if they can produce GE soy for $1 a unit as compared to non-GE at $2, shareholders demand the most profit so they sell it at $1.99. That's the same as subsidized domestic competition.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.