GMO labeling: criticism and a response | Opinion Northwest | Seattle Times
A writer on the West Seattle Blog takes me to task for my column on Initiative 522, which would require mandatory labeling of food from plants that had been genetically engineered.
He writes: ” The writer is hostile to the idea of GMO-food labeling, but I think it’s a useful read, because it reminds me of how weak the argument against I-522 really is. What it amounts to is this: GMO labeling is a hassle for the food industry.”
That is not my argument.
I wrote a column about a hearing at the Legislature on GMO labeling and made some judgments about the arguments I heard. There were people at the hearing from the food industry – James Curry from the Northwest Food Processors, Holly Chisa from the Northwest Grocers Association, and others—who argued that GMO labeling would be a hassle for their industry. I didn’t make that argument.
My argument was that if government is going to force producers to disclose a certain thing on food labels, it ought to have a good reason, probably a health reason. That’s why producers have to have a list of ingredients, calories and vitamins. I think it’s good that those things are on labels (and they should be on all food labels, including some, like beer, that are exempt.)
The West Seattle blogger continues:
No comments:
Post a Comment