Dear hanur, very true question . though we go about labelling of gm products, we may not end up in confirming the exact safety of them. things may blotch up . And as u mentioned, it is all about the MIS information of the GM foods although.

As far as i think, it is better to label them, so that let ppl understand that, we the scientific community, are transparent. . .

Yes. it is needed in view of consumer point of view. No matter it is GM/ Non GM food nowadays people go blindly with the labelling. Example in case of organic foods.. no one knows it is of true organic food but the lable itself is enough to create interest in buying that. In this current scenario people have somehow understood(Wrongly???!!) that GM food will lead to extreme health problems. So it need to be labelled.

Yah, it is important to lable as GM if it is genetic modified product. It will make ur prduct transperant. If there is good advantage then it will be good for us in coming years when more GM will be coming. So people will get trust on GM.

But there are questions that need to be considered to answer your question for example: "If there is no difference in nutritional value between GM foods and no GM foods do the GM foods still need to be labeled as GM?" or "If the corn is GM do all the products with high fructose corn syrup need to be labeled as GM?"

Yes, it is needed to mention on the lable about the food identity. Since labeling is one of the most important criteria to choose a product for consumption. The consumers should be aware of inside the label.

I don’t think that we need to lable it. Why putting lable on it? Did they have side effects?? If so prove it. I think labeling GM just making the costumer afraid from the product.

It a consumer right to be aware of the the food if GM or not

No! A moratorium on gm foods is more appropriate. The intellectual property of food is an ethics issue. The ownership of seed that has evolved through many peoples labor is a crime. The infectious nature of gm foods can no longer be based on determinism. Random or unforeseen consequences of gm foods causing widespread allergic reaction in humans and environmental devastation due to glyphosate http://www.mintpress.net/argentinian-farmers-allege-monsanto-chemicals-poisoned-children/ Independent scientific review needs to be addressed through WHO. This is not a question of labeling it is a question of human rights. Many of these issues with gm foods were brought into question through government, public, and scientific consortium 40 years ago. One of the greatest fears was that e.coli could be made pathogenic. This has occurred. At present day already labeled foods and drugs require warning or labeling to insure consumer the right to health. The FDA is a government body employed by the people to ACT in their best interest. Not a revolving door for multinational corporate employees and policy makers.

Tell Congress to Dump Monsanto's Riders!

UPDATE (December 4th, 2012): We have a friend in Congress! Not every Member of Congress has sold-out to Monsanto. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is circulating a letter to all of his colleagues in Congress opposing Monsanto's riders. Please ask your Member of Congress to join Rep. DeFazio by signing-on to his "Dear Colleague" letter! We've updated the message below with this news, along with news of anti-rgulatory riders attached to the Farm Bill..

Monsanto could get everything it wants for Christmas, unless we convince legislators this week to strip both the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5973) and the Farm Bill of dangerous riders that would give the biotech industry unprecedented power and immunity from not only an already-weakened review process, but also from federal law.

Here’s what’s at stake. Attached to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5973) is the “Farmers Assurance Provision” (Section 733), which Monsanto convinced House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Kingston (R-GA) to attach to the original version. The rider, aptly renamed the “Monsanto Protection Act, is nothing more than a sneak attack on American farmers, consumers and the environment. If passed, it would give Monsanto immunity from federal law by allowing the biotech industry to plant genetically modified crops, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed.

Http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26440.cfm

Yes, it is important to lable as GM if it is genetic modified product it should be made compulsory

GM food has been widely marketed before we realize it. For human rights and knowledge-based decision, GM food label is a MUST. The consequences of GM food consumption are on-going studies and monitoring; the findings should be transparent, indeed disseminated to consumers, either positive or negative. We must know what we eat, including any risk from the choices that we made. Many countries worldwide have endorsed the compulsory labeling of GM food.

Labeling GM food is good but how it can be implemented in a country like India where all food items are not sold in sealed packets. Labeling does not tell you the actual quatity used. For example, a strict vegetarian will refuse to take even ice cream as it contains non-vegetarian components in the form of protein or carbohydrate

Many products usually have labels if produced from genetically modified organisms. It is good, and all products should have. But we should prepare public opinion about positive and negative aspects of this.

Labelling is good as it helps inform consumers as to what they are consuming. Unfortunately, it is not possible to label everything with all the information that a consumer may wish to know.... how about the levels and kinds of pesticide residues? How about origin of every component? How about a label to indicate if the product has been made by unethical or inhumane practices!

Well, it depends where you are. Mandatory in many countries, but not North America, and even those countries that demand labelling have a minimum Low Level Presence %. [Self promotion follows: I've just had a paper accepted on this in the Canadian Journal of Law and Technology with an abstract on ssrn.com]

GM labeling is good but one has to decide how far one should go for this purpose. If a food item has used a GM grain the percentage should be shown along with the label to differentiate it from something which is totally made from GM product. As I had mentioned earlier it should be practised in countries where people are educated and the laws are respected

* "Labelling is good as it helps inform consumers as to what they are consuming".

* "Food labelling is a most reliable, effective and ethical practice to communicate to the consumer about the product in terms of its identity, quality and safety"

I think there are many circumstances where it is quite unethical to accurately label food, or to spell out exactly what was in food people have eaten. There has recently been a "scandal" in the UK where horsemeat in very small amounts has been unexpectedly found in mixed meat products. It is extremely unlikely that anyone has been harmed by ingesting this. Enormous harm and distress has been caused, however, by prominently broadcasting this fact to the population, innocent food manufacturers have lost a lot of money and livelihoods have been threatened. People will be sent to prison for long periods, although I heard on the news this morning that the hunt for scapegoats is not going very well (though is sure to continue until some are found).

The truth often causes distress, but is this a good reason for hiding the facts from the unknowing? Very small amounts of all sorts of things may or may not cause 'harm' to those ingesting, but my own thoughts are that it is good to have the data regardless. I just wrote something on adventitious presence of recombinant DNA in so-called non-gm crops -- the low level presence issue that many jurisdictions are struggling with.

I think there is often very good reason for hiding the truth from the unknowing. Contrary to popular belief, harmfulness is not an intrinsic property of toxins, poisons or even foreign DNA, it depends entirely on their concentration or dosage. Are the righteous truth-tellers really going to print on each food label contents list the concentrations of thousands of toxins when these are present in parts per billion? As a food taster, I ate many beefburgers containing Salmonella, but clearly in doses not large enough to harm me, but which may in fact have built up my immunity. Who would benefit from a (truthful) note on the packet, "Probably contains some Salmonella"? On the other hand, enormous distress and inconvenience to millions would be caused by this.

Addendum: I have just happened upon a paper in J Food Safety, posted online June 3, a survey of bacteria in fresh chicken in the USA. Salmonella was found in 8% of nonorganic supermarket chicken; in 20% of supermarket organic chicken; in 28% of chicken from Farmer's Markets. The public has been led to believe that organic meat is far safer and healthier than standard mass-produced supermarket fare, so deceptive marketing (and labelling?) is evident here. But I still do not think that it improves the health and well-being of the general public to label chickens May contain Salmonella, etc.

It may be difficult to label everything that may be present in food material which could be toxic or not. It also depends on the detection limits for many of the toxins and also levels that could really be doing harm. It is a good practice to label all those major ingredients in a food item especially if it contains considerable amounts of GM material. The idea is not to cause distess in the minds of people by printing the contents in a food item but to be aware of what they consume.

It seems to be assumed, wrongly, that labelling of GM products is a simple matter.

I recently tried a packet of vegetarian sausages on sale in the UK. On top of its list of ingredients, it boldy asserted that All our Ingredients are GM Free. As I did not know exactly what this meant, I wrote to the Head Office, and got the following reply, which I do not think clarifies matters at all:

"In terms of your question on "all our ingredients are GM free" I can confirm that we source all our ingredients from non GMO sources or environments. "

I source my meat from the local supermarket, since I know that it takes food security seriously and has the organisation and resources to do so. But that does not mean that it may not contain Salmonella, cow's ears, bits of horses, etc.

There are a number of issues when it comes to labelling. For example: why do you label? Is there an inherent difference between a GM plant and one that is the product of conventional plant breeding (including mutagenesis)? Fundamentally, there is none - except if you are of the opinion that genes belong only to one species and should not get into other species (although this is clearly happening all the time in nature, and a species is a man-made concept, with many different species concepts under discussion). So why would you label the one (i.e. the GM plant material) but not the other (e.g. mutagenesis)?

Also, what is the information content for the consumer? If there are no associated risks, then the information is rather meaningless. You could then clearly abstain from labeling - since it only incurrs costs without giving the consumer anything.

Again, where do you stop labelling? Should all foods that came into contact with genetic engineering be labelled? This would then also apply to cheese, vitamins, food colorants, other additives, that are mostly produced from GM bacteria. If you do not want to label them, since these bacteria are not in the environment, but plants are, is that a reason? And why should that be?

I am not against labelling per se, but it must be done sensibly and in a way that it really brings the consumers and citizens valuable and trustworthy information.

The way that labelling campaigns have been going in the US would lead to people being afraid of GM (if they are not afraid already), because why label something if it is safe? So it it is labelled, it must be unsafe - that will be the perception.

That is why many anti-GM activitsts in the US are pro-labelling - but have certain exceptions in their proposed bills, in order not to harm certain businesses...

Labeling GM products is a must and good practice. But how far we should go in terms of labeling is an important aspect wherein the country guidelines can differ based on the needs and common practises. Stretching this issue to ridicoulous proportions is not going to make anyone happy and it will be a mockery of the system and the science per se

Plant breeding is gross and comparatively imprecise in that two whole genomes are combined and better recombinants are selected and backcrossed repeatedly. One parent may even be a wild relative of the crop containing unknown but potentially hazardous toxins. A case in example is eggplant (aubergine, brinjal) and its wild relative, deadly nightshade (Solanum torvum). The final product grown by farmers and eaten by all of us as consumers is hardly characterized biochemically and hardly labelled! At least GM crops are more precise in terms of the added gene and its protein product. So, does labeling really matter in GM crops? If so, then all other plant products need to be labelled as well. Products from GM crops like cotton seed oil, soybean oil, popcorn, potato chips, all may contain GM components. They also should be examined for GM sourcing. Isn't it?

Labelling of GM products is necessary. Let the consumers make a choice of what they are consuming. Although in most cases GM foods are safe, it is necessary for scientists to enlighten the masses regarding GM products

@John: what then do you consider to be "GM product" worth labelling? GM plant derived products, where the GM nature is no longer detectable? (like sugar derived from GM sugar beet; oil from GM canola)

Products from animals fed a GM diet? (milk/cheese/yoghurt from cows; meat)

Products that were made with ingredients produced from GM microorganisms? (vitamins; colorants; aromas)

Products made with proteins from GM microorganisms? (cheese)

Maybe even medicines produced from GM microorganisms?

Or do you consider that only some of these products should be labelled? Which would be more informative to consumers, which would "enlighten" them most?

I do not consider labelling per se to be enlightening. This would require an information campaign that informs people about the myriad possibilities of using modern biotechnology/gene technology for the production of food, feed, fiber, fuel and other products.

Yes.