Endorsements & Opposition
At present, there have not been publicly stated reported endorsements or opposition specifically to this bill.
The broad debate surrounding genetically engineered organisms and labeling requirements, however, continues to be highly contested.
- Some argue that GMOs are safe for consumption and can offer public health, agricultural, and economic benefits. Studies to-date have found no evidence of negative effects on human health associated with the consumption of GM foods. The US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society of Medicine, the European Union, and the WHO studied and declared GM crops are safe for human consumption.
- Others advance several concerns surrounding GM foods. If released into the wild, GMOs may outcompete and eliminate their wild plant and animal counterparts. Additionally, some worry that inserting foreign DNA into an organism (as accomplished using the rDNA technique) could potentially increase the risks to humans consuming GMOs, like increased allergic reactions or transferred antibiotic resistance; however, a recent review of GMO foods by the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence of such increased risks associated with GMO foods over their non GMO counterparts.
- Regarding labels, those against the requirement to clearly label GMOs claim that the public unnecessarily fears such foods due to a lack of knowledge and understanding. Anti-labelers further argue that mandatory GMO labeling imposes an additional undue burden since GMO foods are less likely to be bought than their non-GMO counterparts.
- Proponents of GM food labels argue the public has a right to know which foods are genetically modified, so that consumers may make informed decisions about the consumption of GM foods.
Elizabeth Cirulli, PhD, Allison Roder, PhD Candidate & Aubrey Incorvaia, MPP