posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:41 PM
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?
It wouldn't , but a better label will be "May contain REAL food" , that way no corporations will have to worry about those lawsuits. In reality it
doesn't look like any type of labeling will really help anyways, as our entrepreneur spirit always find a way around terms and labels.
A question though as I haven't thoroughly looked at the bill. Will companies be able to label their product GMO free?
From another angle, Why shouldn't a private entity bare the cost of doing business? GMO is a product they want to use , but in your example the
infrastructure is not in place.
We have had food up to this point without GMO so why the need for GMO now? I would assume to increase profit since its a business industry that is the
lobbying for it. Nothing wrong with that.
However, why is it the gov'ts responsibility to ensure corporate profitability over its citizens concern? Sounds like the lobbyist did a ROI analysis
but figured out that the consumer doesn't want to bare the cost of implementing the infrastructure nor are the consumers asking for GMO. So instead
they are lobbying to get rid of the one hurdle that makes it not cost productive.
It appears that they want their cake and to eat it too. Rest assure that they will , as they own the bakery.
edit on 56131America/ChicagoThu,
30 Jan 2014 14:56:36 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)