Bills would require labels on genetically engineered food in Minnesota

  • Article by: Mike Hughlett , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 28, 2013 - 10:26 PM

Bills in the state Legislature are opposed by Minnesota’s major food manufacturers.

  • 31
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
thedanmanFeb. 28, 13 5:40 PM

Why not just let the non-engineered food put stickers or labels on. Incredible amounts of food are engineered. Even farmers before the times of gene research would breed strains of plants and animals for better production. Would save a lot more money and result in a minute amount of labels. The fear of a few is not worth the billions in needless food cost. Even something seemingly harmless will undoubtedly cost a lot of money. Money that YOU pay, not that the company pays. With the population issue on this planet, food genetics is definitely entrenched.

13
24
ahmustangFeb. 28, 13 5:51 PM

Bills like this have already been struck down because of the GATT treaty which our nation has signed onto. Like products cannot have different labeling requirements and GMO and non-GMO foods have been ruled many times to be like products.

10
4
scottythrobFeb. 28, 13 6:16 PM

All the food we eat has been engineered in its history. How many years back does our nanny state want to go back to find plant purity?

9
24
brianstrFeb. 28, 13 6:25 PM

Breeding isn't genetic engineering. That aside, I don't believe GMO foods are inherently unsafe to eat, but if they are engineered to tolerate massive doses of pesticides, then GMO food is loaded with pesticides. That can't be good.

23
5
liberaleliteFeb. 28, 13 6:31 PM

We should have a certain standard that DOESN'T need to be labeled. Anything less ought to be labeled. Not the other way around. It's so unfortunate that real food costs more due in large part to certifications to prove it's real food. What kind of crazy burden is that?

12
6
pkbrandonFeb. 28, 13 6:56 PM

Right! ALL of our food is genetically engineered (that's what plant breeding is -- selectively recombining genes). The only question is HOW the genetic changes are produced -- there's no evidence that newer and more direct methods have any different results from the traditional ones.

6
16
nogophersFeb. 28, 13 7:08 PM

Why do this? GM foods have saved billions of lives. One more way for government to interfere with our freedom,

7
25
aweshucksFeb. 28, 13 8:29 PM

I'd like my food without pesticides, antibiotics or hormones please.

21
2
aweshucksFeb. 28, 13 8:37 PM

Part of the reason that this state has so many obese people is that they are consuming chicken, beef and other meats that are loaded with hormones. Those hormones cause unusual weight gain, bloating and all manner of health problems.

19
6
krautladyFeb. 28, 13 8:38 PM

It seems there is a lot of misinformation from some of those commenting. As a certified organic farmer, who pays about $1500/yr in certification fees to label my sauerkraut as organic, I think big business can afford a little labeling change. Transgenic biology is dangerous. Not only is it changing the biology of the soil, but also causing reproductive abnormalities in farm animals that eat the grain i.e. shrunken ovaries and testes. Also, normal plant breeding does not yield the results of transgenic manipulation. I.E. if you put a butterfly in a room with a cactus, they will never under normal circumstances mate. Transgenic technology doesn't follow these rules of nature......

22
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT