- News Home
12 December 2013 1:00 pm ,
Vol. 342 ,
The iconic 125-year-old Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton near San Jose, California, is facing the threat of closure...
Recent results from the Curiosity Mars rover have helped scientists formulate a plan for the next phase of its mission...
A new, remarkably powerful drug that cripples the hepatitis C virus (HCV) came to market last week, but it sells for $...
In pretoothbrush populations, gumlines would often be marred by a thick, visible crust of calcium phosphate, food...
Evolutionary biologists have long studied how the Mexican tetra, a drab fish that lives in rivers and creeks but has...
Victorian astronomers spent countless hours laboriously charting the positions of stars in the sky. Such sky mapping,...
In an ambitious project to study 1000 years of sickness and health, researchers are excavating the graveyard of the now...
Stefan Behnisch has won awards for designing science labs and other buildings that are smart, sustainable, and...
- 12 December 2013 1:00 pm , Vol. 342 , #6164
- About Us
Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
2 November 2012 5:00 pm
On 6 November, California residents will vote on Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified (GM) food products sold in the state to carry special labels. The vote's result could have knock-on effects in the rest of the United States, and the initiative has been the subject of heated debate in recent months.
Some science groups, including the governing board of AAAS (publisher of ScienceInsider), have opposed the measure. Now, a group of 21 scientists led by Patricia Hunt of Washington State University is pushing back. Yesterday, they released a statement challenging the AAAS position, calling it "paternalistic" and "Orwellian."
The AAAS statement, released on 20 October, argued that mandatory GM labeling is unnecessary and "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers." As for the safety of GM food, the AAAS board wrote, "the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe."
Critics of the AAAS position, however, say it "tramples the rights of consumers to make informed choices." Some consumers make purchasing decisions based on sustainability and farming practices, they argue, others want to eat "the food their forebears ate," and GM labeling may better allow them to make these decisions. AAAS also "ignores the broader life-cycle impacts" of genetically modified crops, write Hunt and her colleagues, in particular the safety of herbicides used to grow herbicide-resistant GM crops, and the potential spread of herbicide-resistance to other plants and weeds.
The 21 scientists also take issue with AAAS's assertion that "contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply." AAAS, they write, "should have included the fact that the Food and Drug Administration's testing program is voluntary." The two groups appear to be emphasizing two different issues: The U.S. government does not require special testing for food products containing GM ingredients; the government does extensively regulate the introduction of new GM crop varieties.
Ultimately, the issue lies in the hands of California's voters. Recent polls suggest that support for Prop 37 is waning, with a slim majority indicating that they will vote against mandatory labeling.