We don’t label foods for pesticides, fertilizers or these other “conventional” food-production technologies. Only genetically engineered food is considered unconventional; it’s what the big labeling-law movement is all about these days. Why is that? Largely because groups of people have managed to make it an issue, not because it’s the one big dangerous thing happening with our food – The LA Times, Karin Klein
Last week, the Los Angeles Times released an opinion blog with the title “Stop fretting about GMOs; we have bigger food issues to worry about” in response to an article by the newly found online publisher, Vox, titled "Traditional crop breeding isn't nearly as traditional as you think.” The Vox article points out that there are alternatives to genetic engineering that are unregulated and proven harmful; both articles argue that genetically inserting coded DNA is safer than alternative methods.
"Traditional breeding methods" for crops have actually changed a lot over time — they haven't just remained static for 10,000 years. And GMOs don't appear to be any riskier than some of these modern conventional techniques that go largely unregulated. – Vox, Brad Plumer
Because of the environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnology, using GMO crops and seeds can be better for the soil, water and air than conventional and organic production. Genetic engineering can actually help reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.
Karin Klein, the LA Times article author, points out that the safety of GMO use has been scientifically supported and the technology is reliably regulated by the FDA, EPA and the USDA. As the title of the article suggests, there are “issues to worry about.”
The battle against genetically engineered food revolves mostly around the idea that it’s somehow bad for us in some way, though critics of the technology have a lot of trouble producing credible, peer-reviewed research as evidence.-The LA Times Karin Klein