The New York Times gives voice to anti-choice advocates’ calls for mandatory labels on genetically improved foods. We again call on Irena Chalmers, a longtime observer of the foodservice industry, to explain why labels are not necessary.

The best a label could do, Chalmers says, would be to “inform the consumer that something that may or may not be found in a genetically modified food product may or may not be safe.” Chalmers notes that “not a single cough, sore throat or illness has been attributed to eating genetically modified food…In 1994 the FDA ruled that it must prove a health food unsafe before it can be removed from the shelf. How can we justify making genetically modified foods exempt from that rule?” Chalmers concludes by asking, “Is perception rather than reason to be the new yardstick for establishing ‘truth in labeling’ regulations?” (“Without more facts, there can be no ‘truth in labeling’ for genetically modified foods,” Nation’s Restaurant News, 12/11/00)