Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Proposition 37 was a California ballot measure rejected in California at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. [2] This initiative statute would have required labeling of genetically engineered food, with some exceptions. It would have disallowed the practice of labeling genetically engineered food with the word "natural."
The best way to avoid pesticides, if that’s a health concern, is to go with organic food, as unlike organic foods, conventional, non-GMO foods are still likely exposed to pesticides.
Despite significant popular support for the labeling of genetically modified foods in recent polls, when it came time to vote on election day, Californians rejected Proposition 37, which would ...
The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors. [239] The study provoked widespread criticism. Séralini held a press conference just before the paper was released in which he announced the release of a book and a movie. [240]
Mainland Canada is one of the world's largest producers of GM canola [2] and also grows GM maize, soybean and sugarbeet. [3] Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency [4] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods.
Mendocino County, California, was the first jurisdiction in the United States to ban the cultivation, production or distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [1] The ordinance, entitled Measure H, was passed by referendum on March 2, 2004.
The StarLink corn recalls occurred in the autumn of 2000, when over 300 food products were found to contain a genetically modified corn that had not been approved for human consumption. [1] It was the first-ever recall of a genetically modified food .
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented. [8] The Court held that a living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952.