ActivismFoodHealthPseudoscience

Why Does the “Right to Know” Movement Care More About GMOs Than Food Allergies?

My daughter is allergic to peanuts and tree nuts. Unlike GMOs, these foods present a real danger. It’s not hypothetical and it’s not overprotective parenting. I’ve seen her skin break out in hives and her ear swell after eating a few bites of a piece of contaminated wheat bread.

Every year people with food allergies die because they eat something that wasn’t properly identified but “right to know” GMO labeling advocates are more concerned with GMOs. When was the last time anyone died from accidentally eating a GMO?

It’s not surprising that these advocates care more about harmless ingredients than foods that pose an actual health risk. The “right to know” agenda has nothing to do with public health. It’s justification for an overpriced food model for the privileged.

While manufacturers are required to identify major allergens in their ingredients, they are not yet required to identify cross-contaminated or potentially cross-contaminated foods. This may change in the future, but for now labeling practices vary widely and the dizzying array of labels in the marketplace can be overwhelming.

Labeling hidden allergens would minimize a real health risk, but “right to know” GMO labeling advocates just don’t care. Of course not. Food allergies don’t do anything for their privileged and bankrupt agenda.

Previous post

Weekend Reads: Bad Kids Books, GOT and Pro Choice Parents

Next post

How exactly does a medicine get approved? (Part 3 of 5)

Jenny Splitter

Jenny Splitter

Jenny Splitter is a writer, storyteller and over-scheduled mom of two living in Washington, DC. She spends her glamorous days trying to write whatever she can, counting 1-2-3 in a slow yet threatening manner to her children, playing with gluten and working to eradicate dog hair from the planet (or at least her home). Find her on Twitter , Google+ and Facebook

1 Comment

  1. June 21, 2015 at 8:25 pm —

    Merely misguided. They are equating Monsanto with GMO, which is like equating Microsoft with computers. While GM aren’t dangerous, Monsanto’s monopoly IS. But just like we wouldn’t ditch our computers because we detest Microsoft, we shouldn’t detest GM because we know Monsanto has a dark background. They have a 40 year track record of poisoning the environment with DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs, etc so they rightly deserve their bad reputation. With glyphosate they made a huge error, as Fraley himself admitted, not realizing that immunity would arise so quickly with the evolution of superweeds. WHO used a combination of 30 studies to link it to cancer. Their replacement, Enlist Duo, is even worse. Most people I know in the bio-engineering field wish Monsanto would just disappear, and they just might get their wish with their proposed move to London and expansion into the organic field. Which is another questionable move, but that’s what’s been reported on Wired

Leave a reply