Jeffery Smith at Huff Po may be engaging in the supreme blogging skill - the invention of a fact. At least, I can't find his substantiation for the following post:
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
I've been searching for over an hour - my legal limit for fact checking - and cannot any verification of this promise. It may be there, but it's not easily found. (Please point me if you can.)
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.) [Link] [My emphasis]
But I suspect this assertion is about to take on a life of its own.
If true, it could have considerable ramifications. Most of those, I think, would not be what the food movement expects.