Label Genetically Engineered Food

Tell the FDA

sponsored by aGREATER.US • co-sponsors: (2)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Food Supply
secondary topics:

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
87%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Dear Commissioner Hamburg,

I am writing to urge the FDA to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. I have a right to know about the food I eat and what I feed my family.

In America, we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations, we don't have that choice when it comes to GE ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families. Labeling is essential for me to choose whether or not I want to consume or feed my family genetically engineered foods.

Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world. As an American, I firmly believe I should also have the right to know if my foods have been genetically engineered.

A recent poll released by ABC News found that 93 percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."

I hope you will listen to me and the other 93 percent of the American public who want mandatory labeling. Please show your support for the interests of the American people by labeling genetically engineered foods.

After rating this idea, please sign on to http://justlabelit.org/takeaction and sign the petition.

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here