{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog","provider_url":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog","author_name":"Beyond Pesticides","author_url":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/author\/beyond-pesticides\/","title":"USDA Proposed Rule for GE Labeling Criticized as Misleading - Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KSvTBXRWie\"><a href=\"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2018\/05\/usda-proposes-rule-ge-labeling\/\">USDA Proposed Rule for GE Labeling Criticized as Misleading<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2018\/05\/usda-proposes-rule-ge-labeling\/embed\/#?secret=KSvTBXRWie\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;USDA Proposed Rule for GE Labeling Criticized as Misleading&#8221; &#8212; Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog\" data-secret=\"KSvTBXRWie\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2018) Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited proposal for disclosing the presence of genetically engineering (GE) in foods. Much to the disappointment of health, environmental, and consumer advocates, the draft rule appears as an attempt mask or to promote GE products, rather than caution consumers. Concerned individuals can send comments to USDA on the proposed rule through regulations.gov until July 3rd. USDA\u2019s proposal will move forward with wholly insufficient disclosure requirements that the Department\u2019s own study had indicated are discriminatory, according to analysts. Rather than use the phrase \u201cgenetically modified,\u201d or \u201cgenetically engineered,\u201d or include the acronyms \u201cGE\u201d or \u201cGMO,\u201d USDA is using the term \u201cbioengineered.\u201d The symbols proposed by USDA are a happy, smiling sun that would read either \u201cbioengineered\u201d or \u201cmay be bioengineered food.\u201d Of course, such a symbol suggests to consumers that these foods are a positive, rather than concerning addition to a food product. However, USDA is also giving the option of simply including the words \u201cbioengineered food,\u201d \u201ccontains a bioengineered food ingredient,\u201d or even leaving that language out and directing consumers to a QR code. A lawsuit by the Center for Food Safety forced USDA [&hellip;]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/BSBE-300x144.jpg"}