SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has developed a voluntary program for certifying and labeling food that doesn't contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs):
The certification is the first of its kind and would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods could carry a "USDA Process Verified" label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the department's plan in a May 1 letter to employees, saying the certification was being done at the request of a "leading global company," which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by the Associated Press.
No government labels certify a food only as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit group called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren't organic.
Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department's Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages, such as "humanely raised" or "no antibiotics ever."
"Recently, a leading global company asked AMS to help verify that the corn and soybeans it uses in its products are not genetically engineered so that the company could label the products as such," Vilsack wrote in the letter. "AMS worked with the company to develop testing and verification processes to verify the non-GE claim."
[The Associated Press has the letter. I don't think they have released it.]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Fluffeh on Monday May 18 2015, @11:28PM
And before anyone claims "it's too much difficult!"... other nations [foodstandards.gov.au] seem to be able to do it easily enough...
GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words ‘genetically modified’. Novel DNA or protein is defined in the Food Standards Code as DNA or a protein which, as a result of the use of gene technology, is different in chemical sequence or structure from DNA or protein present in counterpart food, which has not been produced using gene technology.
Labelling is also required when genetic modification results in an altered characteristic in a food, e.g. soy beans with changed nutritional characteristics such as an increase in their oleic acid content.
GM labelling is not about safety. It is about helping consumers make an informed choice about the food they buy.
And for simple labelling:
Where will I find GM on the label?
You will find the statement ‘genetically modified’ on the label either next to the name of the food, e.g. genetically modified soy beans, or in association with the specific ingredient in the ingredient list, e.g. soyflour (genetically modified). If the food is unpackaged, then the information must be displayed close to the food at the point of sale, for example genetically modified soy beans on a container of loose dried soy beans.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Tuesday May 19 2015, @09:15AM
It's about enabling consumers to avoid food that may be chemically incompatible with their bodies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:05PM
Severe liver and kidney damage as well as endocrine abnormalities documented in laboratory animals:
Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage [soylentnews.org]
...and when the boffins think they have outsmarted several million years of evolution, in just a few generations (read: growing seasons), Mother Nature wheels around and kicks them in the nuts.
Worm Evolves to Eat GMO Corn Designed to Kill It [soylentnews.org]
...then there's the case of Roundup-resistant weeds evolving.
I also remember seeing things about GMO-related bowel abnormalities.
.
...and I remember when the food industry all jumped on the organic bandwagon such that the feds had to establish rules for that label.
If GMOs are so wonderful, why doesn't Big Food want to label it?
Could it be that they -have- done the studies (and buried those after seeing the results)?
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:06AM
Cool, now we have liver killing Maize in the wild that is readily eaten by worms..
I want a green giant worm that eats Monsanto and multiplies. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:56PM
You mean the study by Seralini, who is incredibly biased against GMOs, that was found inconclusive after feeding large amounts of the Glyphosate herbicide, not just the GMO food, to rodents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair [wikipedia.org]
If GMOs are so wonderful, why doesn't Big Food want to label it?
Money. They know that some people will avoid the label independently of its safety. Examples include "No MSG" and "Gluten Free".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:18PM
Upon re-reading I realize that I need to clarify. The study involved feeding very large amounts of the herbicide directly to rodents in a way that is in no way close to how much herbicide people would injest even if the vegetables were not washed. This is not why the findings were inconclusive or retracted. The main criticisms of the study was about the experimental set up, the animal strains used, and the conclusions made.