Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hang on why should everything have to be paid by the consumer? Its their fault in the first place not to add the info about what's in their foods. They have more money then the consumers so they should have to bear the brunt of costs. We always have to pay for their mistakes " I know lets stick this and this on our products and get the useless eaters to pay for it on top of the product price " I am so sick of these companies that have billions in the banks and they have the damn nerve to charge us their damn customers for their mistakes. I think its best if we do have a rebellion against these big companies because I'm so sick of hearing how they are screwing us and getting away with it. People WE hold the power WE are their employers if it wasn't for us they would be non existent. I'm sorry Phage this isn't aimed at you or anyone here.




posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I think GMO labeling is a great idea, and I have already voted in favor of it in my state.

Phages arguments against it only support it more. It will create greater accountability in food production, since manufacturers will have to be more aware of where they get their raw materials from, which they should be doing in the first place. It would also benefit farmers more. If the prices go up....so what? prices go up for a hoard of ridiculous reasons, we might as well have a reason that is actually beneficial.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


It will create greater accountability in food production, since manufacturers will have to be more aware of where they get their raw materials from, which they should be doing in the first place.

How will it create greater accountability? Instead of implimenting new procedures to avoid the "may contain GM materials" label manufacturers will just apply the label in order to avoid additional costs and to avoid risk of error.



It would also benefit farmers more.
How would it benefit farmers?



If the prices go up....so what?
Prices won't go up. You'll just see boxes of corn flakes and tortillas that now say "may contain GM materials" along with the list of ingredients in small print, whether they do or not.



prices go up for a hoard of ridiculous reasons, we might as well have a reason that is actually beneficial.
How about a more informative reason like a "non-GM" label?
edit on 10/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Labeling isn't a dumb idea unless you think informed decisions are dumb too.

What choice is there when every bag of tortillas says "may contain GMO"?
Because that's what's gonna happen.


you seem to be operating on the mistaken premise that what you proposed (that it is a FACT that 'May contain GMO' labels would be 'everywhere') is the only acceptable outcome.

based upon recent posts of yers, i truly wonder why you are held in such esteem.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Phage

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.
www.truthinlabeling.org...


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)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


where is your proof.....where are your links....

your premise is dumb



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Proof of what? Links to what? It's my statement about what I think mandatory labeling would "accomplish". Do you want a youtube video about it too? Apparently youtube videos carry some weight for you. Apparently you prefer posting youtube videos of others' opinions rather than coming up with your own ideas.

The premise is that in order to avoid violating the law it is simpler and carries less risk to simply label everything that has any chance of containing GM material, whether or not it does.

Why is the premise dumb? It's the logical and practical reaction of food sellers to mandatory labeling.

edit on 3/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I remember when Prop. 65 was passed in CA. The reasoning was that consumers had the right to know if they were being exposed to carcinogens in their water, food or in places that they frequent. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? It did to me. The result, once passed, was to place the label notice as required by Prop 65 on EVERYTHING. You went into Prop 65 overload. You couldn't go into a business that didn't have that warning sign in the _ Everything seemed to carry the label to the point of desensitizing you to the label. That was probably the intent. It cost millions yet as a practical matter produced no benefit.

It makes me wonder if the same thing would happen here if they passed a "May contain GMO" type label. If the label stated "Contains no GMO" then it would be a badge of honor and something to possess. It also might be something difficult to achieve in many many types of food.

You can presently identify and purchase non-GMO foods but you have to give up a lot of things, work hard to find the food, grow it and cook it mostly yourself.

Fast food is definitely GMO food so I guess this would be called slow food.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If the corporations mark many products initially as may contain Gmo and have a decrease in sales, then in the pursuit of more sales and profits, some will take a hard look at their suppliers from start to finish. And more may follow in their footsteps if that is what the consumer wants. That is a consumer driven process.

Unlike Monsanto and GMO's being the new kid on the block wanting everyone else to work around them.

That is like me creating a new type of artificial sweetner for example and rather than me labeling it, have everyone else that have been around a longtime require THEM to label their products as not having my sweetner in it.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


That is like me creating a new type of artificial sweetner for example and rather than me labeling it, have everyone else that have been around a longtime require THEM to label their products as not having my sweetner in it.
"Non-GM" labeling is voluntary. It is not required but it is a wonderful marketing tool if your market is those who are afraid of GM products. Sort of like "dolphin safe" tuna.

And, if an "informed consumer" is the goal, it makes more sense that "may contain GM materials."

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Funny you mention tuna, you would think the labelling of tuna would be fairly straight forward, but it's not..



GMO labelling is going to make one helleva mess!



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
All told, 64 countries require labeling of this nature. Even freaking China labels GMOs.

Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam

- See more at: justlabelit.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If all the other kids are jumping off a cliff would you?

"Everyone is doing" it doesn't change the fact that voluntary "non GM" labeling would be a much more effective way of informing the consumer about what they are getting.

BTW, how many countries are not labeling?
edit on 10/25/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
When so many people against GMOs can't tell you why they are or even what GMOs are then I don't see a logical reason in labeling GMOs..




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I can tell you why I'm against it. Genetic modification has the potential to create monsters. Virtually every crop we grow is unnatural and was developed through selective breeding over time for food, flavor, or production characteristics (read "profit"). Virtually every production crop we grow won't survive without human intervention. GM could potentially create unnatural and possibly undesirable crops that do survive and become nuisance plants. It could also pollinate non-GM crops and destroy the gene pool of plants known not to be harmful. There could also be hidden effects that don't necessarily manifest themselves and could go years and destroy lives before the origin of the problem is discovered.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: lynxpilot




Virtually every production crop we grow won't survive without human intervention. GM could potentially create unnatural and possibly undesirable crops that do survive and become nuisance plants.
Why would GM crops be different? Why doesn't a new hybrid have the same potential?


There could also be hidden effects that don't necessarily manifest themselves and could go years and destroy lives before the origin of the problem is discovered.
We've been growing GM crops in the US for 20 years.
edit on 10/25/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: lynxpilot

Let me know when that moves beyond a "could happen" or "could potentially" basically let me know when there is evidence and not just the fear.

You have your reasons but it is obvious many people are against them "just because" without even knowing what they are.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The big lie is that there is actually NO extra expense with labelling products containing GMO. They keep telling consumers "this will make food cost more". That is a LIE.

They already put labels on foods showing ingredients. Adding a few extra characters telling consumers "Genetically Modified" isn't going to add anything to the production price.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Adding a few extra characters telling consumers "Genetically Modified" isn't going to add anything to the production price.

I guess you didn't actually read the OP but saying "may contain GM material" doesn't really help inform the consumer.

But to not put a label on a product would be quite expensive because it means that the raw materials would have to be tracked from the source, through processing, to the store. If that label is not applied and it turned out that the product had GM material there would be hell to pay. So, even if it doesn't have GM material, the label would say it might. How does that help the consumer to make an informed decision?

Doesn't a label that says "no GM" do a better job of it?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Your right it will not cost them a cent more to label anything that may contain GMO as may contain GMO's because if there is any chance of cross contamination they will just label it that way. You don't think they will spend money on tracking every grain shipment do you? The cost will still be on those that claim no GMO's so you're not changing anything with a labeling campaign.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join