2. Transparency. I agree with Option a)inadvertent or technically unavoidable, and no more than 5% of the specific ingredient by weight.

3. Proposed 4th option for sharing this information, I personally would not like texting, but with all other bases covered it seems to be the only option. I would prefer the disclosure be as small as possible simply because food labels are getting so many things thrown on them, it's getting confusing and crowded.

4. Conventional breeding: plants bred through pollination, grafting, (consult plant breeders for more words that should be included here). Found in nature: seen in the wild or used to be observed in plant or animal habitats and life cycles.

5. If being chemically identical was the matter, GMO labeling would not happen in the first place. I'm afraid if you allow GMO labeling, you must place it on all products, no matter how refined, that came from GMO crops. UNLESS it is agreed that the labels are only for unprocessed foods and materials.

I am against labeling foods as "GMO" when the only relevant ingredient is processed to be identical to non-GM options. If labels are required, I'd prefer only labeling products with over 5% of a specific ingredient coming from GM sources. If there are labels, I'd prefer a QR code to include all relevant information on the product, beyond just GM presence or absence. At a minimum, provide the specific compound of concern, the level likely present in the food, and the level likely to be harmful. Then provide the equivalent amount of the food they would need to eat in a day to reach that likely harmful amount. Also do this for every potentially toxic compound in a food (for example, cyanide in apple seeds).

Labeling foods as GMO is counterproductive. It creates confucion, not clarity. Please don't do it. If you have to do it, please use the least intrusive methods possible. Thank you.

Disclosure of BE ingredients should should not be required when inclusion is inadvertent or technically unavoidable and when no more than 5% of the total weight of the product. It also should not be required for highly refined products like sugars and oils, nor should it be required of products from animals fed BE fodder.

When disclosure is required or voluntary, channels to receive that information should include text on the product packaging and/or a QR code. If text on the packaging is used, it would make sense to appear near the ingredient list, and an example of wording would be, "Some ingredients produced with bioengineering."

The first proposed symbol, without any additional text, is good, but I think looks better in color than in black-and-white. Alternative 2-C is also friendly and works well in both color and black-and-white.

I very much look forward to a labeling system which levels the playing field and allows food manufacturers to be proud of supporting sustainable agriculture and using BE ingredients.

The concern isn't so much the upregulation of promoter regions, or insertion of useful genetic regions into the target organism, rather, the specific way the product was bioengineered and the purpose it serves. This is especially true of crops that resist pesticides and therefore may higher pesticide residues.

Thanks.

This is a cynical attempt to exploit ignorance and build profit margins by charging more for a butterfly label. It is also interesting that food manufacturers and processors seem to fight any attempt by government to mandate clearer dietary/nutritional labels as too costly, yet voluntarily embrace the specious labeling of non-GMO.

Facts over fear. Choose science. No GMO labeling.

1. *A worldwide scientific consensus agrees that foods and ingredients that come from GM crops are as safe as those from conventionally bred crops.* I like and support the proposed term of "bioengineered" and the nonthreatening label symbols.

2. The threshold level of "inadvertent or technically unavoidable, and no more than 5% of the specific ingredient by weight" seems appropriate, given the safety of these ingredients and the potential technical challenges in monitoring and reporting much smaller amounts.

3. I completely disagree with sending a text message to consumers about BE ingredients. The proposed disclosures through: words, a symbol, and scannable QR codes are sufficient. If people want to know what is in their food, they need to read the label, not expect a text message. ("The right to know comes with a responsibility to learn!") As for the location and size of the labeling, I think the symbol size and position should be equal to or smaller than what is allowed or required for an "organic" label.

4. I fully support the guidance that products created through pioneering editing tools like CRISPR need not be disclosed if the end result mimics conventional breeding or could potentially be “found in nature.” The definition of “conventional breeding” should include human-led mechanical actions such as grafting, hand pollination, artificial insemination, and other mechanical manipulations, including those performed in a laboratory. "Conventional breeding" should NOT include irradiation and other broadly applied chemical alterations of DNA intended to produce mutations. For the definition of "found in nature," I suggest that the deletion of a gene or multiple genes is acceptable under this term. The addition or substitution of particular genes or gene variants that occur in the same or very closely related species (ones that can naturally and successfully cross breed/hybridize with each other) should also be allowed. The introduction of genes from a different species that would not be able to naturally and successfully cross breed with the recipient species does NOT, in my view, constitute "found in nature."

5. No, highly refined products like sucrose, dextrose, cornstarch, high-fructose corn syrup and vegetable oils, which are produced from GM/BE crops should not require disclosure.

Thank you for your efforts on this challenging topic and to help educate consumers based on sound scientific principles.

Do not give in to charlatans and fear-mongering, self-righteous liars. We do not label GMOs for the same reason we don't label vaccine syringes with "possible autism inside" or airplanes with "chemtrail device".