Already, major newspapers are weighing in on the issue with both the Oregonian and the Greeley Colorado Tribune opposing such measures and shedding light on why similar initiatives failed in California in 2012 and in Washington in 2013; Oregon previously considered the issue in a labeling initiative in 2002, which also failed.
If you don’t agree with the Oregonian’s view that stigmatizing biotech products is at the heart of the GMO labeling debate, read this fear-provoking Vermont Watchdog.org article.
But what can be the downside of such labels? The Greeley Tribune points out:
A number of farmers and ranchers contend the measure would only contribute to the ongoing state-by-state patchwork of food-labeling and food-safety rules that add to confusion for consumers and cause disruptions for producers who market food to multiple states….Implementing this patchwork of mandatory labels will only create additional production costs, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers, some of whom already struggle with their grocery bills.”
In fact, a recent study out of Cornell University concludes that such labeling laws could increase food costs by $500 a year for the average family.
Want to learn more? Ag journalist Elton Robinson explains “Five Reasons Why We Fight Mandatory GMO Labeling” on the Farm Press Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment