Skip to main contentOpponents of labeling genetically altered foods have laid out a buffet of reasons to oppose Ballot Measure 27, but their entree argument is that it's not necessary--because the products are strictly regulated and have been proven safe ("Flying Their Freakfood Flag High," WW, Oct. 2, 2002).
Three reports since 2000 from the National Academy of Sciences don't back up those claims.
While saying there has been no scientific evidence proving the genetic food fiddling unsafe, the reports raise concerns about potential hazards and also highlight weaknesses in government oversight.
In an August report, the group said milk produced from genetically engineered cows could foster resistance to antibiotics and alter the balance of bacteria in consumers' intestines. The report also complained that in the field of genetically engineered insects, "research and commercial experimentation is proceeding without any regulatory oversight."
It also noted that "there are reasons, beyond safety or nutrition, for a consumer to want labeling of food derived from genetically engineered plants or animals, including religious, ethical, right-to-know, or simple preference reasons."
The two most recent NAS reports are on the Web at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309082633/html/index.html and http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084393/html.
Even some of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's own scientists have raised concerns internally over the government's approach. Those memos have been collected by the Iowa-based Alliance for Bio-Integrity, which has posted them on its website, www.biointegrity.org.
WWeek 2015