Abstract
One of the priorities to address food security is to increase the access of farmers to biotechnology, through the application of scientific advances, such as genetically modified organisms and food (GMF). However, the spread of (mis)information about their safety strengthens the clamor for mandatory GMF labeling. This paper provides an overview of food labeling policies, considering the principles suggested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and analyzes the consequences for the world food security of the Brazilian labeling policies compared to developed countries. We discuss the discriminatory application of GMF mandatory labeling in the absence of any scientific evidence as it has the potential of causing social harm and jeopardizes research, production, and distribution of food and consumers' right to information.
Highlights
Food security depends on political will and government action and should be based on scientific evidence
Food safety represents an important component of food security and should receive even more attention since 3 million people per year likely died from food and waterborne disease prior to 2010 (FAO, 2010b)
We focused on food labeling policies in Brazil compared to developed countries, which have similar capacity of genetically modified organisms and food (GMF) production, for their relevance in the global food supply
Summary
One of the priorities to address food security is to increase the access of farmers to biotechnology, through the application of scientific advances, such as genetically modified organisms and food (GMF). The spread of (mis)information about their safety strengthens the clamor for mandatory GMF labeling. This paper provides an overview of food labeling policies, considering the principles suggested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and analyzes the consequences for the world food security of the Brazilian labeling policies compared to developed countries. We discuss the discriminatory application of GMF mandatory labeling in the absence of any scientific evidence as it has the potential of causing social harm and jeopardizes research, production, and distribution of food and consumers’ right to information
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
