Citizens across U.S. have always pushed for the right information about the food that they eat. This is called food labeling.
GMO labelling on the other hand was introduced to give consumers the freedom to choose between GMOs and conventional products. Essentially, if a foodstuff is produced using genetic engineering, this must be indicated on its label. Actual labelling practice, however, is far more complicated - and must be planned and regulated with issues such as feasibility, legal responsibilities, coherence and standardization.
Because American consumers now worry on what they put in their mouth, they question and rally what's in their food and is it safe?
Remember that there was a version of the bill entitled "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" (when in fact it is what Americans call "Denying Americans the Right to Know," or DARK Act)-passed the House last year, and having it approved by the Senate mean that mandatory GMO labeling will only be a thing of the past.
Now, key debates regarding products that contain genetically modified organisms are aimed at food industries and they are on the defensive.
Just recently, a legislation cleared the Senate Agricultural Committee that would block state-level laws mandating GMO labeling. The legislation, which the committee passed with bipartisan support in a 14-6 vote, favors a voluntary national standard rather than mandatory labeling. It would pre-empt a labeling law in Vermont, the first of its kind in the U.S., that's set to go into effect in July. The bill, backed by Agriculture Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), could be called to a Senate vote as early as next week. The House already approved similar legislation last year. Allies and lobbyists of the Roberts bill, which include prominent industry figures like ConAgra, DuPont, Coca-Cola and Walmart, appear confident in the proposal's chances, even as a rival group of senators has proposed alternative legislation.
The alternative bill, introduced last week, aims to protect state-level GMO laws while also working toward a plan that would avoid a national patchwork of conflicting regulations. It is backed by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
On the other hand, Democrats' bill outlines four different ways manufacturers can disclose the use of GMOs on the already-required nutrition facts panel. They include a catchall statement that the product was "produced with genetic engineering" at the end of the ingredient list and the inclusion of a symbol developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that would note the presence of GMOs. Neither front-panel disclosures nor "warnings" would be required.
It is ironic for America when Russia and China recently enacted an embargo on all imports of corn and soy products originating in the U.S.
