Why Label Genetically Engineered Food, the New York Times Wonders?

Sweet corn/Fairfax County

The New York Times is often vilified by the right as being liberal and biased, while many liberals find it an amazing newspaper offering their daily "news" diet. I for one don't share this overly emotional hatred or admiration for this newspaper. Frankly, I find The New York Times often quite a conservative and closet-establishment publication. Case in point is its today's editioral, Why Label Genetically Engineered Food? In it, it refers to the earlier announcement by Whole Foods Markets to start labeling GMO products in its stores (see my earlier post). It says:

"....Any private company has the right to require its suppliers to meet labeling standards it chooses to set, and consumers have a right to know what’s in the food they are buying. But there is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers."

It then refers to the Food and Drug Administration's view that there is no basis for concern, and adds:


 "For now, there seems little reason to make labeling compulsory....."

I believe, however, that there are sufficient reasons why labeling should be compulsory. In one of my earlier posts, GMO, Health and Elections, I referred to an article by Francis Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé in the Huffington Post, "Seven Things to Tell Your Friends About GMOs"  where the writers, experts in food, environment and sustainability, describe seven key points about GMOs:

" 1. GMOs have never undergone standard testing or regulation for human safety.....
2.  But we know that GMOs have proven harmful in animal studies.......
3. And the most widely used GMOs are paired with an herbicide linked to serious health risks..........
4. The consequences of GMO technology are inherently unpredictable............
5.  GMO makers intimidate and silence farmers and scientists...................
6.  GMOs undermine our food security.....................
7. .GMOs aren't needed in the first place, so why would we take on these risks and harms?" 

I think this sums it up nicely. I might add that with all these real and potential risks, consumers should have the right to know what's in their food. It's telling that the "liberal" New York Times appears to prefer the status quo and takes the side of the establishment, being agri-business or the FDA.  Instead of asking why labeling of GMO products should be required, a better question would be, why have a newspaper that's not being inquisitive or even concerned about the consumers' health?