In this article for the Bradenton Herald, Janelle O’Dea talks about SRQ Bio’s recent ISO certification to do GMO testing in it’s Sarasota facility. This is news likely to be repeated across the nation as labs come on board with the science required to carry out certified testing. It’s one thing to mandate labeling and testing (89% of Americans favor the mandate, according to the Mellman Group), but quite another to put in place the necessary resources to carry out said tests. I believe it will be important to have these (certified) resources locally throughout the country to expedite testing, especially since some of our trading partners require it as well. SRQ Bio tests human food, pet food, and cosmetics as well.
AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick outlines the Senate bipartisan deal to require labeling of GMOs nationally. This action is prompted by several states threatening to enact labeling laws, Vermont being the latest. The law is not as targeted as the Vermont law, however, allowing a ‘text’, ‘symbol’, or electronic label accessed by smartphone.
In this BBC story, Bayer is said to have made a takeover bid for Monsanto. The deal, should it happen, would create the world’s largest seed & pesticide supplier. Bayer is the second-largest crop chemical producer behind Syngenta. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to purchase Syngenta in 2015, with Syngenta accepting an offer from ChemChina (the deal is still under review). See Bayer CEO video here.
A good read from a scientist/founder of a biotech company that believes GMO foods are safe AND thinks they should be identified on food packaging: Jason Kelly is a founder of a biotechnology company that makes products with genetically modified organisms for the food industry and he believes that food labeling is a good idea. He sides with 88% of his colleagues in thinking that modified foods are safe (see graphic below), although that number is much lower in the general public.
“Foods with bioengineered ingredients are safe, but shrouding them in secrecy breeds doubt and fear. Clear, informative labeling is a first step toward transparency that can build trust and educate consumers.”
The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded that monkeying with the genetics of our food doesn’t produce the “Frankenfood” that some opponents claim – but on the flip side it isn’t producing substantially increased yields, as promised. The committee examined over 1000 studies before coming to their conclusion.