Witnesses Support GM Crops at House Committee on Agri Hearing

During the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture's public hearing on March 24, 2015 in Washington, D.C., all six witnesses argued against the mandatory labeling of GM food products. Most of the witnesses testified that GM crops provide benefits to farmers. They also enumerated the costs that labeling would add to the expenses of farmers, manufacturers, and consumers.

According to Nina Fedoroff, senior science advisor for OFW Law and former Science and Technology Adviser to Secretaries of State Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton, most American consumers believe GE foods are unsafe because of "increasingly strident efforts of determined anti-GMO activists to convince the public that GMOs are bad." Adding a GM label to food won't actually help consumers make meaningful distinctions about safety because "GM foods on the market today are as safe as, and nutritionally equivalent to, their non-GM counterparts," she stressed.

At present, the FDA supports voluntary labeling in which food manufacturers indicate whether their products have or have not been developed through genetic engineering.

Read the testimonies of the witnesses at the House Committee on Agriculture website.