Op-ed pick: Is GMO labeling about fact, or fear?

Like the Minnesota Legislature, the California Senate is considering a bill to require labeling of foods that contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOS.

An editorial from the Los Angeles Times questions the need for and effect of labeling.

(The bill) would require conspicuous yet imprecise labels notifying consumers that the food contains some genetically engineered ingredients, without making it clear what the engineering was meant to accomplish. Food companies are developing products for reasons other than to make pesticide use easy, such as building resistance into crops, like oranges, that are threatened by disease, or creating non-allergenic forms of some grains. But the labels wouldn't give these details. They would serve mainly to frighten grocery shoppers by implying that there is something wrong with the food, without making them better informed. And the labels would be so ubiquitous as to be almost meaningless; it's widely estimated that 70% to 80% of the packaged food in conventional supermarkets contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Read the Minnesota bill here. Or watch the hearings:

• Amazon’s top 100 books of 2014
• What turned you into a reader?
• 17 book ideas for the fall