10 of 15

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

they are selling to you. Then get small stickers made with the red international symbol for "no" or "do not" or "forbidden." You know the one with the red bar at an angle crossing a circle. So you can easily read the words, place this copy: "no genetically engineered (or modified) foods here"; or if you don't have space, just say: "No GMO food here".
"Why bother? When you put that sticker on your menu, you will automatically raise a question in the mind of your customer: "why doesn't that other place just down the street say they don't use them too? What do you think will be going through the mind of your customer?"

(Excerpted from: Turning Non-Genetically Modified Lemons into Lemonade by Ray MacNaughton)

Now this is all a good and wonderful thing which ICCR has initiated. If you are among the 50%+ who do not wish to purchase and consume genetically engineered food products I'm sure you will participate in it. But can it go all the way to finally influence the FDA to yield to the obvious will of the majority and simply label foods as either containing GMO's or not containing GMO's? It's really not a big thing to ask. But will it actually happen on the scale which ethics and responsible government oversight demands?

This is a hard call to make. The big corporations that have been developing, promoting and using genetically engineered food resources are among the largest in the world and that these GMO's are already in our food supply has been a fact for over a decade now. Their influence within the corridors of power unseen is unfathomable.

Unless a real bandwagon and backlash develops over this I fear that the voluntary non-GMO labeling will become just a trendy fad of safe foods that the average person will not be able to afford on a daily basis sort of like the all natural, organic selections that are indeed already there, but how many can afford them on a daily basis? And ethical investors can feel good about investing their money into food processing companies that do not use GMO's and label their products as such. I might be wrong in this but I would venture to speculate that ethical investors are outnumbered by investors with no ethic other than making the largest return on their investment regardless of the ethical nature of what they are investing in. Unfortunately I really don't see the real bandwagon and backlash developing that I would like to see develop: one in which elected officials are voted out of office over this issue and appointed officials are replaced by those with an ethic of governmental responsibility to the electorate rather than to the corporate.

At any rate, ICCR's move is a bright point in an issue that has had a long, dark history for those who have been aware of it but unable to do anything about it.

In the past ICCR has operated via the means of "shareholder resolutions" in order to influence corporate responsibility on issues where it feels the policies of corporations are at variance with the general welfare of society. The launch of its Don't Grow GM Beets campaign is a much more proactive approach and one in which the public at large can participate and which decidedly deserves to be participated in and applauded!

Learn more about this author, Mike Kottke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about Should the FDA require US food manufactures to reveal if foods are genetically modified? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!