Washington Votes Today on GMO Labeling

   Those Washington State folks are at it again, setting the stage for the rest of the nation. Tomorrow's vote on whether to require genetically modified food to be so labeled could make them the first state in the union to require it.
   Recently, I blogged against GMOs. My stance has since softened, but I remain tentatively against them. One of the neat things I've learned, is that GM wheat, though tested in hundreds of fields, has not yet been commercially marketed. (Albeit, there is fear some of the test crops have leaked into the general crops.)
   It is said, there is no scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. But, it is also noted the FDA does not test for safety, but, rather, allows the companies to do their own safety testing. I have not studied GMOs enough, yet, but would think that even if the FDA allows the companies to do their own testing, independent testing is, just the same, occurring.
   The polls show those in favor of GM labeling well out front, but the GM supporters have far outspent them, so, will the GMOs erase the margin at the end and pull of the victory. Money persuades more than reason, often, and some would say the GMOs also have the better share of reaosn.
   If Washington does require labeling, it will impact the food supply of the entire nation, potentially. It could lead to other states requiring labeling. Some have suggested, the label amounts to placing a skull and crossbones on the product, causing fear of the product, and cutting into its sales.
    I, along with so many, wonder if we know enough about GMOs. There are no long term studies. If there is not yet scientific determinations, it does seem there is anecdotal evidence, at least from the early roll out in the 1990s. I do wonder but what a slow down of GMOs might be beneficial, allowing us to study them more.
    I also note this: Not all GMOs are equal. Some seeds are engineered to excrete chemicals that are poisonous to bugs, and it does seem to me that should be more of a concern than a seed that is modfied simply to be more nutritious. I would think a see modified just to be more nutritious has greater odds to be safe. I would probably even say, bring them on.
    Me, I tentatively favor not only labeling, but labeling as to what the modification seeks to do. If it seeks to ward off pesticides, that should be on the label.
   (This column undated Tuesday, Nov. 5.)
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/04/everything-you-need-to-know-about-washingtons-fight-over-labeling-gmos/

http://news.yahoo.com/column-food-fight-vote-gmos-could-alter-u-204821798.html