posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:32 AM
The labeling of GMO products is a topic of great concern. The arguments on both sides are reasonable (depending, of course, on your point of view).
The consumer has a right to know what they are eating. Absolutely! No way to argue that.
The expense will have to be borne by the consumer and not everyone cares about GMO. Oh, yeah. That makes sense too.
Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? Let's say that it does become a legal requirement that any food product which contains, or may
contain GMO is required to put that information on the label in the interest of informed consumerism.
How would such a requirement be enforced? Well, if a certain level of GMO material is found in a product and that product does not carry the
notification there would be hell to pay.
Now let's go back to the first argument against labeling, the expense. In order to be certain that there were no GMO materials or the materials did
not exceed a certain threshold various new measures would have to be implemented in the transportation, storage, and processing of the raw materials.
All of these measures would add expense and as we know, added expense is always passed on to the consumer. That's fine, let's assume that everyone
is willing to accept that additional expense. What happens if somewhere in that complex chain, something goes wrong and a batch of GMO material gets
mixed in with a batch of non-GMO material? Somebody is going to get fined and/or sued.
My question is this. With the added expense and legal risk involved, isn't the simplest solution for the producer to simply put the "May contain
GMO" label on everything? It seems that is the only way to avoid legal risk (and increased costs).
So how does this result in a better informed consumer?