1:00 AM A highly contested California vote over specialized labeling could have implications for U.S. agribusinesses. <\/p>\n
By ALICIA CHANG\/The Associated Press<\/p>\n
LOS ANGELES Calories. Nutrients. Serving size. How about \"produced with genetic engineering?\" <\/p>\n
click image to enlarge <\/p>\n
A corn-based food product carrying a label identifying it as not containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is sold at the Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins store in the Los Feliz district of Los Angeles on Friday. <\/p>\n
The Associated Press <\/p>\n
California voters will soon decide whether to require certain raw and processed foods to carry such a label. <\/p>\n
In a closely watched test of consumers' appetite for genetically modified foods, the special label is being pushed by organic farmers and advocates who are concerned about what people eat even though the federal government and many scientists contend such foods are safe. <\/p>\n
More than just food packaging is at stake. The outcome could reverberate through American agriculture, which has long tinkered with the genes of plants to reduce disease, ward off insects and boost the food supply. <\/p>\n
International food and chemical conglomerates, including Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., have contributed about $35 million to defeat Proposition 37 on the November ballot. It also would ban labeling or advertising genetically altered food as \"natural.\" Its supporters have raised just about one-tenth of that amount. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The rest is here: <\/p>\n
Do we have an appetite for genetically modified food?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 1:00 AM A highly contested California vote over specialized labeling could have implications for U.S. agribusinesses. By ALICIA CHANG\/The Associated Press LOS ANGELES Calories Continue reading