Food debate

Regarding “GMO labels” (Page A13, July 18), it is rare these days for Congress to agree on anything. The bipartisan passage of GMO labeling legislation was significant for that alone. There was more good news in the new law.

This newspaper has urged readers on numerous occasions to avoid the rejection of science. That’s why Texas farmers and ranchers found it disappointing that the Chronicle sided with those who reject the proven science of biotechnology.

There are problems with the legislation, but not because it doesn’t provide ample opportunity to avoid GMOs. Texas Farm Bureau favored the voluntary labeling applied to thousands of products. The new law provides another layer of choice. We signed off on the bill only because agriculture must have regulatory certainty.

It is a disturbing precedent to mandate labeling that provides no useful information. This label will have nothing to do with nutrition or safety. Clearly, detractors want the equivalent of a warning label. Absent any evidence of GMO harm, such a label would be counterproductive. There are no “vulnerable populations” with regard to GMOs because there is no danger.

The Vermont labeling law was, frankly, a mess. It was difficult even for Vermont state regulators to explain and left food providers bewildered by the inconsistency. It wasn’t “tough.” It was unworkable. Other states could have piled on with more conflicting laws, making compliance a nightmare. With the clock ticking, it was important for Congress to act.

This new GMO labeling law is not perfect, but it will hopefully put an end to a pointless argument about biotechnology in food. Russell Boening, president Texas Farm Bureau