The Labeling Shortcut

May 6, 2016

By Margot Pollans

The Federal Food and Drug Administration is currently accepting public comment on the question of whether it should define the word natural. It is asking the wrong question.

The word natural is already all over your food packaging—on your cereal, on your milk carton, on your frozen dinner. What does it mean? Many consumers think it means the product is good for them and for the planet. In fact, producers slap the label on almost anything, and the FDA has not yet done anything to stop them. It is considering doing so now in response to loud calls for a uniform legal definition. But can a label actually help make food better for us and for the planet?

Probably not. But in recent years labeling has taken center stage as the regulatory tool of choice for the food system anyway. The fight over genetically modified organism labeling is a prime example, as both proponents and opponents have poured millions of dollars into state-level voter referendums and legislation. Just Label It, a pro-labeling advocacy organization, estimates that opponents spent $45 million to defeat California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of all foods with GM ingredients. Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed laws mandating GMO labels, and legislation is currently pending in many other states. Congress continues to explore options for federal labeling regulation; a recent bill that would have preempted mandatory state laws and created a voluntary scheme passed in the House but failed in the Senate.

Labeling is frequently applauded as less invasive than traditional regulation and more protective of consumer choice. The theory behind labeling as an alternative to direct regulation is that, armed with good information, consumers will make good choices for themselves and, if they want to, for the environment. Producers will respond to these market signals and produce healthier and more sustainable food.

But the food system is messy. Even the experts can’t always tell which food is healthiest. In the environmental context, assessing whether the local, organic option is better than a conventional imported product requires a complicated life-cycle analysis. It matters not only how many miles the item traveled to market and whether pesticides were used but also the farm’s soil conservation and runoff management practices, the fuel efficiency of the mode of transportation, the type of fertilizer used, the source of irrigation water, etc.. Most labels focus on one or two of these factors, arbitrarily prioritizing certain data points, such as whether a product was grown with pesticides, in the case of the organic label, over others, such as whether a farm practices sustainable crop rotation. In other words, “transparency” obfuscates.

The difference between natural and unnatural, like the difference between organic and conventional and GMO and GMO-free, is, itself, meaningless. These labels provide very little information either about how healthy the product is or about the size of its environmental footprint. Instead, these labels create opportunities for food producers to take advantage of the subset of consumers willing to pay more for perceived benefits. Indeed, the organic label is administered not by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service or even its Food Safety Inspection Service but instead by the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Even if we assume labels can help consumers identify healthier or more sustainable foods, reliance on labeling to regulate the food system risks leaving some, or even most, consumers behind. Not only does it take money to buy truly high quality food but consumers must also have the time and resources to research the available options. Label advocates argue that transparency protects consumers’ freedom to prioritize. Some prioritize health, and others prioritize affordability. But is this a trade-off consumers should really have to make? Relying on transparency alone essentially creates two food systems: one that provides nutritious, safe, and environmentally responsible food to the wealthy; and a second, much larger system that provides chemical-laden food to everyone else, with dire environmental and health consequences.

Even more fundamentally, do we want consumers to be responsible for arbitrating this trade-off?  Transparency burdens consumers with the responsibility to wade through reams of information armed only with their disposable income, such as it may be, as a means to fix massive systemic problems. More powerful food system actors—corporations that process, distribute, and market the vast majority of food eaten in this country and government agencies that regulate them—are off the hook.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

30 comments on “The Labeling Shortcut

  • Quaker Oats dude is getting his a$$ sued over the “100% natural” label vs. glyphosate trace amounts;

    five million dollar lawsuit, that’ll learn ’em?



    Report abuse

  • Could they also add one to restrict ‘gluten free’ only to products that originally contained gluten or just require that gluten be in the ingredient list as ‘gluten’. There are others also, but this one is a current irritation for some reason.



    Report abuse

  • "Most labels focus on one or two of these factors, arbitrarily prioritizing certain data points, such as whether a product was grown with pesticides, in the case of the organic label, over others, such as whether a farm practices sustainable crop rotation."

    Anyone who still thinks organic farmers don't use pesticides really has no business writing on the subject.

    "Relying on transparency alone essentially creates two food systems: one that provides nutritious, safe, and environmentally responsible food to the wealthy; and a second, much larger system that provides chemical-laden food to everyone else"

    "Chemical-laden food?" If she has any facts to back up that claim, she should be reporting the food to the FDA. All the food sold in the USA must meet FDA regulations for maximum levels of harmful chemicals. Anything under these levels is safe for human consumption. That's called science. Hyperbole like "chemical-laden food" belongs on The Food Babe's website, not here at RDF.



    Report abuse

  • “Most labels focus on one or two of these factors, arbitrarily prioritizing certain data points, such as whether a product was grown with pesticides, in the case of the organic label, over others, such as whether a farm practices sustainable crop rotation.”

    Anyone who still thinks organic farmers don’t use pesticides really has no business writing on the subject.

    “Relying on transparency alone essentially creates two food systems: one that provides nutritious, safe, and environmentally responsible food to the wealthy; and a second, much larger system that provides chemical-laden food to everyone else”

    “Chemical-laden food?” If she has any facts to back up that claim, she should be reporting the food to the FDA. All the food sold in the USA must meet FDA regulations for maximum levels of harmful chemicals. Anything under these levels is safe for human consumption. That’s called science. Hyperbole like “chemical-laden food” belongs on The Food Babe’s website, not here at RDF.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #4
    May 7, 2016 at 8:34 am

    Anyone who still thinks organic farmers don’t use pesticides really has no business writing on the subject.

    Likewise anyone who thinks they use pesticides indiscriminately!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

    “Pestcides in Organic Farming”. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2014-06-17. “Organic foods are not necessarily pesticide-free. Organic foods are produced using only certain pesticides with specific ingredients. Organic pesticides tend to have natural substances like soaps, lime sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as ingredients. Not all natural substances are allowed in organic agriculture; some chemicals like arsenic, strychnine and tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) are prohibited. …”

    Organic certification is a certification process for producers of organic food and other organic agricultural products. In general, any business directly involved in food production can be certified, including seed suppliers, farmers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.

    Requirements vary from country to country (List of countries with organic agriculture regulation), and generally involve a set of production standards for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping that include:

    avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs

    (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, food additives),
    irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;[1]

    avoidance of genetically modified seed;

    use of farmland that has been free from prohibited chemical inputs for a number of years (often, three or more);

    for livestock, adhering to specific requirements
    for feed, housing, and breeding;

    keeping detailed written production and sales records
    (audit trail);
    maintaining strict physical separation of
    organic products from non-certified products;

    undergoing periodic on-site inspections.

    In some countries, certification is overseen by the government, and commercial use of the term organic is legally restricted.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #4
    May 7, 2016 at 8:34 am

    “Chemical-laden food?” If she has any facts to back up that claim, she should be reporting the food to the FDA. All the food sold in the USA must meet FDA regulations for maximum levels of harmful chemicals. Anything under these levels is safe for human consumption.

    You REALLY believe that ALL harmful chemicals are excluded from food and drink sold in the USA by strictly enforced legislation????

    That’s called science.

    Nope! the (lax) systems of legislation are called law, which may or may not be decided on the basis of scientific advice!

    If you are under the misapprehension that dangerous chemicals are excluded from the diet of Americans, some basic research starting with mercury in water-supplies and fish, may provide enlightenment!

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-016-03/

    More than 95 percent of all mercury in fish is methylmercury, and this form of mercury biomagnifies to high concentrations at the top of food chains (Wiener and others, 2002).

    During the last 15 years, scientists have increased their understanding of mercury in standing water, such as lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands.

    You could then move on to nitrate and pesticide residues.



    Report abuse

  • Always had a problem with the term Natural in these contexts. Please name something that is not supernatural (that is, something real) that is not natural. Here is a short list of other natural substances I have no desire to eat:

    Lead, mercury, uranium, arsenic, the herpes virus, ebola, genital warts and faeces to name but a few, natural one and all but not going to be sprinkled on to my Wheat Bix tomorrow morning thank you.



    Report abuse

  • There was an atheist homophobe used to post on this site many years ago. Argued that his distaste for homosexuals was entirely natural, so…er…leave him alone in his voting and posting preferences.

    “Natural” is the favourite judging heuristic of the intellectually, scientifically and morally indolent (or incompetent).



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion: “If you are under the misapprehension that dangerous chemicals are excluded from the diet of Americans, some basic research starting with mercury in water-supplies and fish, may provide enlightenment!”

    Does this have anything to do with organic versus conventional food? Would an “organic” fish at the top of the food chain not have any mercury? The FDA has released numerous advisories on the dangers of mercury in seafood, giving maximum frequencies for the consumption of certain species.

    To bring the discussion back to organic versus conventional and science:

    “Researchers at the Stanford University Medical School conducted the most comprehensive independent study to date—“Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives”—in 2012. For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. They found nothing to support the notion that organic food, on the whole, is safer or more nutrient dense or vitamin rich. The researchers found organic food had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide residues but the residue levels on the conventional foods was well within safety limits.”



    Report abuse

  • One rule-of-thumb for packaged food products is to count the number of ingredients. The fewer the better.

    The researchers found organic food had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide residues but the residue levels on the conventional foods was well within safety limits

    Well within safety limits. Oh, well, that’s ok then. Someone has very sensibly and independently discovered how much of various poisons is “safe”, and wise legislators without bias or influence from vested interests – in agribusiness, for example – have set these limits in law, so everyone knows where to draw the line. This is safe, that’s not.

    If “well within safety limits” is good, then “30 percent lower” has to be better, doesn’t it?



    Report abuse

  • I note the original article appears to be trotting out the same old line in favour of GMO: that it is only the food safety aspect that matters. Not the environmental risks and economic costs of the business practices of the biggest GMO promoting corporations.



    Report abuse

  • Ohooligan: “If “well within safety limits” is good, then “30 percent lower” has to be better, doesn’t it?”

    “Well within safety limits” means well within safety limits. It doesn’t mean “chemical-laden” as the original article stated.

    Ohooligan: “I note the original article appears to be trotting out the same old line in favour of GMO: that it is only the food safety aspect that matters. Not the environmental risks and economic costs of the business practices of the biggest GMO promoting corporations.”

    You will of course tell us which of the environmental risks and economic costs of the business practices of the biggest GMO-promoting corporations, which have been so trumpeted by opponents of GMOs, have actually come to pass in these past twenty years that GE crops have been grown. Farmers appear to love them and gladly grow them of their own free will.



    Report abuse

  • 14
    bonnie2 says:

    you-make-me-feel-like-a-na-tur-al woman

    New nursery plant tags. Box store management say “we care”, reality is they’re afraid of scaring customers.



    Report abuse

  • @prietenul #13

    Roundup-ready/herbicide resistant weeds. Horizontal gene transfer. Seed patents – can’t retain seed for next year’s planting. Subsistence farmers growing indebtedness. Terminator genes.

    Google around these terms, is it really all hysterical anti-science scaremongering?

    Once again, it’s the business practices applied around this new technology that are harmful, not the technology itself.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #10
    May 8, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Alan4discussion: “If you are under the misapprehension that dangerous chemicals are excluded from the diet of Americans, some basic research starting with mercury in water-supplies and fish, may provide enlightenment!”

    Does this have anything to do with organic versus conventional food?

    Yes! Just because you have never heard of a problem, does not mean it does not exist!

    Would an “organic” fish at the top of the food chain not have any mercury? The FDA has released numerous advisories on the dangers of mercury in seafood, giving maximum frequencies for the consumption of certain species.

    To bring the discussion back to organic versus conventional and science:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Iraq_poison_grain_disaster

    The 1971 Iraq poison grain disaster was a mass methylmercury poisoning incident that began in late 1971. Grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide and never intended for human consumption was imported into Iraq as seed grain from Mexico and the United States. Due to a number of factors, including foreign-language labelling and late distribution within the growing cycle, this toxic grain was consumed as food by Iraqi residents in rural areas. People suffered from paresthesia (numbness of skin), ataxia (lack of coordination of muscle movements) and vision loss, symptoms similar to those seen when Minamata disease affected Japan. The recorded death toll was 650 people, but figures at least ten times greater have been suggested.

    Methyl mercury is commonly and repeatedly used, as a seed dressing in agriculture, and while the worst cases of poisoning arise from people mistakenly eating badly labelled treated seed as food, there is plenty of it building up in the soil or being leached into waterways (along with nitrates and pesticides).

    That is of course in addition to that mercury delivered by air pollution from coal burning power plants!



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #9
    May 8, 2016 at 8:54 am

    “Natural” is the favourite judging heuristic of the intellectually, scientifically and morally indolent (or incompetent).

    Re. the OP pictureof chips/fries: – I thought that “natural” potatoes, were the wild species growing in the high Andes!
    As for “natural” cooking oil, I suppose oil from wild olives or frying in fat from hunted buffalo, might qualify!



    Report abuse

  • As always and as with most everything, you merely need to be an informed consumer. It is only then that you’re not swayed by the seductive labels marketing folks spend hours coming up with in an effort to sell their wares. As Reckless pointed out earlier, there are many “natural” things we’re not interested in sprinkling on our steel cut groats.

    SBM (Science Based Medicine) did a comprehensive piece on this topic:

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-if-anything-does-natural-mean/



    Report abuse

  • 19
    jim.price.wa says:

    We had a big battle over GMO labeling in Washington State. Luckily, the labeling initiative was defeated, but there was never a problem for the anti-GMO crowd in the first place.

    I defy you to find one packaged food product that does not contain GMOs, which does not state that fact prominently on the package (so that they can overcharge those who don’t understand biology).



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #10
    May 8, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Alan4discussion:- “If you are under the misapprehension that dangerous chemicals are excluded from the diet of Americans, some basic research starting with mercury in water-supplies and fish, may provide enlightenment!”

    Does this have anything to do with organic versus conventional food?
    Would an “organic” fish at the top of the food chain not have any mercury? The FDA has released numerous advisories on the dangers of mercury in seafood, giving maximum frequencies for the consumption of certain species.

    Questions like this show that you have failed to do even basic homework before forming opinions!
    I referred to ORGANIC CERTIFICATION @#6, but for some reason you still seem to need to ask if organic sea-food would be produced from polluted waters!

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4137e/y4137e06.htm
    Table 2: Draft IFOAM general principles concerning organic aquaculture production


    Conversion to organic aquaculture is a process of developing farming practices that encourage and maintain a viable and sustainable aquatic ecosystem. The time between the start of organic management and certification of the production is known as the conversion period.
    Aquaculture production methods can vary widely according to biology of the organisms, technology used, geographical conditions, ownership structure, time span, etc. These aspects should be considered when the length of conversion is specified.

    When introducing non-native species, special care must be to avoid permanent disruption to natural ecosystems.

    Location of organic production units maintains the health of the aquatic environment and surrounding aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem.

    Wild, sedentary/sessile organisms in open collecting areas may be certified as organic if they are derived from an unpolluted, stable and sustainable environment.



    Report abuse

  • Okay, are you guys interested in science? On May 17, the National Academies of Science made the definitive survey on the safety of GE crops for humans and the environment:

    “Safe for humans

    To gauge whether foods made from genetically modified crops were safe for human consumption, the committee compared disease reports from the United States and Canada, where such crops have been consumed since the mid-1990s, and those in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they are not widely eaten.

    No long-term pattern of increase in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s in the United States and Canada was found.

    There was no correlation between obesity or Type II diabetes and the consumption of GE foods. Celiac disease, which makes humans intolerant of gluten, increased in both populations. Patterns in the increase in autism spectrum disorder in children were similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States, the committee reported.

    Economic and ecological effects

    Overall, the report found that GE crops save farmers money in terms of time spent tilling and losses to weeds and insects, but can have both positive and negative effects on pests, farming practices and agricultural infrastructure.

    Pest-resistant crops have resulted in lower pest populations overall in some areas of the midwest, especially European corn borer, the report found.

    However the use of herbicides on GE crops in some areas has resulted in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

    Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn’t appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

    The report specifically addressed a commonly cited link between GE crops and falling populations of monarch butterflies. As of March 2016, there was no evidence that the suppression of milkweed (the only food of the insect in its caterpillar state) by the use of herbicides caused declines in the monarch population, the committee found. In fact, the monarch population has seen a moderate increase in the past two years. Still, the report called for continued monitoring of the situation.”

    I’m sure you unscientific GMO-haters will now change your opinion on GMOs like Bill Nye did. Before you get all excited about the yield of GE crops not being higher, USA Today did not accurately describe the report. It said that the trajectory of normal yield increases in corn, soybeans, etc., had not seen an increase. It said nothing about organic yields because these are known to be woefully behind conventional yields. I’m sure you all will do your research and read the study and inform us of all its shortcomings? Or no, it’s more comfortable to live with one’s prejudices. If you prefer biased sources, please read Andrew Pollack’s piece in the NY Times on the NAS survey. Have a nice read. I sure did.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #21
    May 19, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Before you get all excited about the yield of GE crops not being higher, USA Today did not accurately describe the report. It said that the trajectory of normal yield increases in corn, soybeans, etc., had not seen an increase. It said nothing about organic yields because these are known to be woefully behind conventional yields. I’m sure you all will do your research and read the study and inform us of all its shortcomings?

    However, as has been pointed out previously, intensive methods of boosting “conventional yields”, come at an ecological price!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36315952

    **A new report says that global agricultural emissions must be slashed to prevent the planet warming by more than 2C over the next century.

    The current focus is on reducing emissions from transport and energy.

    But an international team of scientists argues that if farm-related emissions aren’t tackled then the Paris climate targets will be breached.

    An estimated one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.

    The report by researchers from the universities of Vermont and Sheffield and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change examines non-CO2 emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide.

    Cattle produce methane as part of their digestion and emit it mostly through belching. The addition of natural or synthetic fertilisers to soils releases large amounts of nitrous oxide.

    The researchers have calculated for the first time that these emissions must be reduced by one gigatonne per year in 2030.

    They estimate that the mitigation plans currently in place would only cut emissions by 21-40%.

    Co-author Lini Wollenberg from the University of Vermont said: “This research is a reality check. Countries want to take action on agriculture, but the options currently on offer won’t make the dent in emissions needed to meet the global targets agreed to in Paris.

    “The tough part is how to reduce emissions by a further two to five times and support large numbers of farmers to change their practices in the next 10 to 20 years.”

    The scientists say that “more transformative technical and policy options” will be needed.

    The scientists looked at current agricultural methods that could help, such as ensuring the efficient use of water to irrigate crops, improving the use of fertilisers such as nitrogen and manure and by managing livestock in a more efficient and sustainable way.



    Report abuse

  • Tomorrow (at last!) I’m setting up some equipment for an experiment in growing salad vegetables at a UK university. Hoping for a couple of papers to come out of it. While I’m there I’ll be talking about some GE for enhanced conveyer belt production.

    I find prietenul’s sustained indifference to the agribusiness implementation risks of a technlogy, whilst claiming that commentators here are simply science-phobics very wearing.



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #23
    May 19, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Tomorrow I’m setting up some equipment for an experiment in growing salad vegetables at a UK university.

    I planted out some regular Iceberg lettuces and tomato plants in my poly tunnel last week.

    It’s a rather late season because of the mix of cold and dry weather, after cold wet weather much earlier.



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #21
    May 19, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    it’s more comfortable to live with one’s prejudices. If you prefer biased sources,

    As you continue to repeatedly demonstrate in the face of clear evidence risks and problems in agriculture.

    However the use of herbicides on GE crops in some areas has resulted in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

    Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn’t appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

    Perhaps you can make the connection between this report and my comments!



    Report abuse

  • prietenul #21
    May 19, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    I’m sure you all will do your research and read the study and inform us of all its shortcomings?

    Some of us were rather hoping that you might have noticed that we had already done considerable research on economic and ecological effects, which were presented to you in earlier comments and links.

    . . . . Or perhaps you would have noticed that the report you cite, confirms some of the earlier information presented in previous comments on this and other discussions.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/07/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked/#li-comment-147813



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #20
    May 15, 2016 at 4:42 am

    Table 2: Draft IFOAM general principles concerning organic aquaculture production

    When introducing non-native species, special care must be to avoid permanent disruption to natural ecosystems.

    Perhaps some of the advocates of unregulated “global free trade”, should have taken a leaf out of the Organic Aquaculture guidance notes!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36349031

    DNA tests have confirmed that three man-eating Nile crocodiles have been found living in Florida’s swamps.

    Unlike local alligators, the species preys on humans and is thought to be responsible for up to 200 deaths a year at home in sub-Saharan Africa.

    It is possible more of the beasts are at large in the state, experts say.

    It is not known for certain how they reached the US. “They didn’t swim from Africa,” said University of Florida herpetologist Kenneth Krysko.

    One likely possibility was that they were brought in illegally by unlicensed collectors, who then failed to keep them secured or intentionally released them, Mr Krysko told the Associated Press news agency.

    Ah!! Who cares about invasive species when there is money to be made?!!!!



    Report abuse

  • DNA tests have confirmed that three man-eating Nile crocodiles have been found living in Florida’s swamps.

    Ah!! Who cares about {spreading} invasive species when there is money to be made?!!!!

    Even if it does eventually cost an arm and a leg!!! 🙂

    . . . or in the case of the Zika Virus – a head!



    Report abuse

  • I see the Royal Society president, has called for a review of GM potentials and necessary safeguards.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36359682

    The ban on GM crops by European countries should be reassessed, the president of UK science body the Royal Society says.

    Prof Venki Ramakrishnan said the science of genetic modification had been misunderstood by the public and it was time to set the record straight.

    He said it was inappropriate to ban an “entire technology” and products should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

    But opponents say GM crop technology is untested and the ban should remain.

    Prof Ramakrishnan said that the blanket ban on GM crops by European countries was misconceived.

    His comments coincide with a guide published by the Royal Society, which describes itself as the UK’s independent scientific academy, for the general public.

    “GM is simply a technology for introducing a particular set of traits into a plant. And you have to decide on a case-by-case basis which of those traits are appropriate or not,” he told BBC News.

    You should regulate each product, which should be properly tested for its health and environmental effects.”

    GM foods are not on sale in supermarkets and nor are they commercially grown in Europe for human consumption.

    The Royal Society guide sets out to answer 18 key questions that it obtained from focus groups. These include:

    Are GM crops safe to eat?

    Could they harm the environment?

    In the long term, could there be unexpected and untoward side-effects?

    The answers have been produced by an expert group of researchers who have drawn on evidence from scientific studies. The answers acknowledge areas of uncertainty and some of the technology’s drawbacks.

    The guide’s stated intent is to provide clear, unbiased information on the science of GM crops.

    It states that GM crops are safe to eat, though it acknowledges that they can cross breed with non-GM varieties and there might be unexpected and untoward side-effects.

    Prof Ramakrishnan acknowledged there were some “legitimate worries”.

    One he said was the fear that a small number of multinational corporations would monopolise food production.

    This could in turn lead to the loss of thousands of varieties of fruits, vegetables and cereals unless the technology was properly regulated.

    What is needed is a regulatory body with a broad range of scientific and market expertise, (acting in the public interest), which is strong enough to stand up to pressure from the lobby of the commercial interests of multinational corporations.
    When this is in place, it is reasonable to authorise individual products on the basis of their risks and merits.

    Meanwhile, the potential for creating disaster areas (as with anti-biotic resistance generated by farming malpractice), is likely to run wild in other countries which can’t or won’t regulate reckless profiteers who seek to monopolise production and markets!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.