Farm Press Blog

Safeway stakeholders reject anti-GMO labeling proposal

  • Safeway grocery stakeholders reject an anti-scientific proposal to force the labeling of food products which possibly contain GMOs.
  • National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof says the rejected proposal sends a loud message to GMO activists and their attorneys – “Science trumps baseless fear-mongering campaigns.”

A news release from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) hit my computer Inbox recently which outlined the Safeway grocery store chain’s recent rejection of an anti-GMO (genetically-modified organisms) mandatory labeling proposal.

At the August Safeway shareholders annual meeting in Pleasanton, Calif., Safeway sided with the NCPPR to reject an anti-scientific shareholder proposal to force Safeway to apply labels on products containing GMOs.

National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof says the Safeway stockholder rejection of GMO labeling sends a loud message to GMO activists and their attorneys – that “Science trumps baseless fear-mongering campaigns.”

The Safeway proposal was submitted by the Green Century Equity Fund.

Danhof called the proposal unscientific and unnecessary and predicted the adoption of GMO-labeling could lead to higher food prices and thus financially hurt lower-income shoppers.   

Many scientific organizations state that foods with GMOs are safe to consume, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association (AMA).

The AMA, a trusted U.S. health organization, says, “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for…20 years. No overt consequences on human health have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature.”

Keep in mind AMA’s 20-year factoid.

Most people either support GMOs, or are in the anti-GMO crowd, or have too much on their plate with everyday life to worry about it. This latter group may trust science to decide what’s healthy and what’s not.

An easy solution to this controversy is to place pro- and anti-GMO leaders in a room for an eight-hour day. Allow each side to discuss their sides on the issue, and then – keeping in mind the 20 years of safe GMO food consumption - decide on a certain year when both sides will agree that GMOs are either safe or harmful.

Perhaps it could be 25 years, 30 years, or 50 years but a decision must be reached and supported by both sides. No one can leave the room except for potty breaks until the decision is reached by the eight hour. No exceptions.

My guess is the anti-GMO crowd would refuse to participate and instead continue to pursue fear mongering with people – justifying the fear of the unknown.  These folks should be ashamed of themselves.

My bottom line on GMOs is we have a growing world – you have heard the figures – two more billion people in the next 35 years. This means more people will need food and GMO-use is one way to fill more bellies. Without it means additional starvation worldwide.

GMOs save lives and jobs. Let’s expand its use as the U.S. wheat industry now advocates - not hamper it by fear tactics by those trying to initiate self-serving hidden agendas.

Discuss this Blog Entry 0

Post new comment
or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education Courses
Sponsored by Monsanto, this accredited Weed Resistance Management CEU gives an overview of...
New Course
The Federal Organic Foods Production Act set standards for both growers and consumers, and the...
New Course
Mites are small arthropods in the class Arachnida and the subclass Acari. Although they are...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×