Just because a food is labeled organic, does not mean it is non-GMO. In fact it is easier for a GMO food to be organic than a non-GMO food.
It makes more sense to have the non-GMO foods be labelled. The reality is that if it is corn or soybeans, it is GMO. I don't have a problem with that. If non-GMO foods want to incur the labeling costs with the resulting price increases, then let them do that.
I just wish they would allow us to know if our food is genetically modified. At this point, if it's not organic, we pretty much have to think that it is GMO's.... What is so wrong with truth in labeling and letting the consumer be informed and choose for themself?
Marilyn - well stated!
And you believe Michael Pollan who is an American author, journalist, activist, and professor of journalism at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. A 2006 New York Times book review describes him as a "liberal foodie intellectual." not a scientist. He is a good writer who has found a niche market spreading misconceptions.
First, GMOs have not been tested "for years." We have relied on the companies manufacturing them to conduct their own studies, and those have lasted 3 months. We don't know the long-term effects because independent researchers have been denied access to the seeds. Secondly, how can we say "there are no health problems"? There are many health problems in the U.S. that we don't know the cause of, that could be linked to GMOs, and some evidence that this is the case. I recommend that everyone read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" for a thorough and common-sense discussion of this issue.
People are afraid of change , the GMO products have been tested for years and proven safe. Listen to the scientific facts not the scare mongering by those who are uninformed.
In the US we have been consuming GMO corn and soybeans in huge amounts for twenty years without a SINGLE health problem.
Of course I will and please pass me the gluten.
There is no scientific evidence that GMO's are harmful. No public funds should be expended on GMO labeling just to pacify people unwilling to consider the scientific facts.
"improvement" is a relative term. I point out roses and tomatoes. Roses have been tinkered with to keep them from opening because florists believe that's when the look their best. But the genes related to scent are now absent. Tomatoes have been manipulated to prevent bruising skins during long transport--and look at the result--the tasteless thick-skinned supermarket fare. Anyone frequenting nurseries bypasses the hybrids (read 'GMOs) and wants the plants labeled 'heirlooms' -heavenly scented roses and juicy tomatoes.
How Would You Know Unless Its Labeled. And Since There Is Nothing To Hide Why Would You Not Want The Consumer To Make His Or Her Own Choice.