Mae Culumber

Mae Culumber

Keys To Effective Potassium Management in Nut Crops

Carol Miller

Carol Miller

How Dixondale Farms Is Aiming To Protect Its Legacy

David Eddy

David Eddy

Pistachio Power: Where Growing and Research Mesh for Success

Bob West

Bob West

Data Dig: California Farmers Working Hard To Protect Their Assets

National Farmers Union Supports Mandatory GMO Labeling

Growing Produce Staff By Growing Produce Staff|April 3, 2015

Following the announcement from Reps. Mike Pompeo, (R-K), and G. K. Butterfield, (D-NC), to reintroduce a bill to halt state GMO labeling laws and allow the labeling of GMO-free products through USDA certification, the National Farmers Union (NFU) president said he and the organization support mandatory labeling of food products containing GMOs.

Roger Johnson, NFU president, says labeling is necessary to promote unified standards and to meet the demand of more information from consumers on food products.

Do you believe in mandatory labeling of GMO food crops?

Top Articles
A New Biopesticide in the Making To Fight Spotted Wing Drosophila

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

“NFU policy supports mandatory labeling for food products throughout the processing chain, seeking to reduce consumer confusion and allowing producers to differentiate their products,” Johnson says. “We now call on Congress to bridge the numerous proposals that are currently pending for the benefit of producers and consumers.”

Source: National Farmers Union news release

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Matt Matt says:
April 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm

Good for the NFU. I doubt it is what those originally lobbying the Feds were looking for. In any event this type of action should be left with the individual states. California’s prop 65 does not seem to have stopped any businesses from selling their products and I didn’t see the feds stepping in then.

Lobbying the feds is just big GMO trying to get the government to stop GMO labeling through phony assertions that it would cost more money to label.

Reply
Avatar for Ron Ron says:
April 8, 2015 at 8:43 am

There is no constitutional authority for the Federal government to require such labeling. If consumers really want it, they will reward food packagers who do label it by paying them more. Other companies, seeing the one doing such labeling taking market share & making profits will follow suit.

Reply
Avatar for Nicolas Nicolas says:
April 8, 2015 at 11:25 am

I was for labeling for a long time, and then I heard an argument that I hadn’t heard before that changed my mind. The FDA doesn’t require labels on things that don’t cause harm. Not a single study has shown that GMOs cause any kind of harm. There is nothing preventing food manufacturers and retailers from labeling their food as non-GMO, but the feds shouldn’t get involved in labeling, because the science doesn’t support it. It should be a voluntary process like Kosher labeling.

Reply
Avatar for Matt Matt says:
April 8, 2015 at 2:16 pm

The original reason this came about is STATES, who legitimately have authority in this area, are requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. Manufacturers who do business across state lines want to have special treatment so they can ignore the state laws.

What is backfiring on them now is the major farmer unions are backing GMO labeling at the federal level. If the feds are going to regulate GMO labeling to pre-empt states rights, then it is fair game for the feds to require GMO labeling.

Nutrition labels, Place of manufacture, Ingredient Labels, etc. are on food we consume, yet they also are not there to warn us about potential issues with the food. They are there to inform us about the content of the food so we can make educated decisions about what we consume. Nutrition labels are only of value if people use them to modify their consumption habits. The last time I looked Frosted Flakes and Lucky Charms were still selling even though they are not the healthiest choice.

Labeling foods containing GMOs is just one more small item on the label that consumers can use to decide if they want to purchase something or not. If the feds want to pre-empt states then I personally think they should vote to label GMOs.

The people that SHOULD be worried about GMO labeling is the NON-GMO project, etc. If ALL food has a GMO labeling requirement then they lose a lot of business as consumers can start relying on normal product packaging instead of a third party verification.

Look, even general mills sees the writing on the wall. Regular cheerios now carry a non-gmo label. Why? Because general mills knows that is costs next to nothing to label, Cheerios did not contain much GMO to start with (it is most oats and there are no GMO oats at the moment) so they needed to source a very small amount of non-gmo cornstarch. What they gain is a bump in sales from people who are looking to avoid GMOs, but don’t want to pay the price of organic. It is a smart move that costs General Mills nothing, but may cause a slight upswing in sales.

Reply
Avatar for Vincent P. Colandrea Sr, Vincent P. Colandrea Sr, says:
April 10, 2015 at 7:57 pm

THE NFU GETS 3 BIG HORAYA’S FROM ME. Now all we have to do is get this Republican Congress to back the NFU.& STOP the 6 Devils From Hell; Syngenta, Bayer, Base, Dow, Monsanto & DuPont FROM MANUFACTURING THAT JUNK.
Thank you Vince

Reply
Avatar for Matt Matt says:
April 11, 2015 at 12:32 am

Vincent:
It is less helpful to demonize the companies as they also produce, through conventional means, some VERY good vegetable varieties. Most of these are not market driven We need to support the varieties that are bred conventionally and avoid those that are GMO. These companies are very market driven.

Reply
Avatar for Chuck Niwrad Chuck Niwrad says:
April 22, 2015 at 11:50 am

This is an ill-advised accommodation to misinformation from fear mongering anti-GMO interests. Why is this story even categorized under “Food Safety”? There is no credible evidence to support the claim that GMO causes harm or represents a risk to the environment that can’t be mitigated, yet anti-GMO interests have successfully demonized the technology. Rather than take the long view and defend a valuable technology, this bill will produce an unnecessary segmentation in the marketplace founded on lies and misinformation.

Reply

Related posts