Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So basically you just want things to stay the way they are now? Farmers can already voluntarily label their food as non-GMO.

No. I don't really care either way. I'm just pointing out that mandatory labeling probably won't have the effect the proponents claim to want.

People still won't know whether or not they are eating GMOs, just that there are a lot of foods that "may contain GMO materials". But those that are concerned about it probably already know that and those that aren't concerned...aren't concerned...and probably don't look at labels anyway.

If the farmers keep track on GMO and non-GMO crops, there is absolutely no reason to be against labeling.

Why do you keep talking about the farmers? The farmers don't make and sell the tortillas.
If a majority wants labeling, fine. If a minority forces their desires on a majority, not so fine.

Originally posted by Phage
Maybe it has something to do with misinformation and distortion. You can read this interesting study about attitudes toward GMOs:

You're avoiding the question.

I didn't ask what you think, nor did i ask for you to link me to a study about ATTITUDES regarding GMO, by a biotech company, defending a biotech product.....

I asked for a logical answer, based on fact....

the correct answer is "if GMO was completely harmless, then people wouldn't care if it was in their food"

Since it is potentially harmful, people want to know what foods they are in, so they can avoid it....

this is not rocket science, Phage..

reply to post by Daedalus

You're avoiding the question.

Maybe. But that's because the question has nothing to do with the topic.

The topic is about the fact that mandatory labeling won't accomplish the desired goal.

Since it is potentially harmful, people want to know what foods they are in, so they can avoid it....

Some people do. I don't really care.

Originally posted by Phage
Why do you keep talking about the farmers? The farmers don't make and sell the tortillas.

is that a trick question.....i KNOW you are not THAT stupid...

where do you think the raw materials for this hypothetical tortilla come from?

i'll give you a hint...it starts with an "F", and ends with "arm"

reply to post by Phage


The little guy would support labeling, as the traceability is already in place, and supported by the farmer who produces labor intensive organic and non-gmo products in pursuit of higher profits from smaller yield.

However, the proverbial wrench is thrown in the gears due to the little guy being bought out by Big Ag. Big Ag is pressures the little guy not to have an opinion on this very subject. If I represented my employer in this statement, I would be chastised and possibly fired. It is in our "Code of Conduct" training.

Believe me, all of the small producers are being bought up... They keep the people and knowledge but restrict us from speaking out against the Biotech Companies with whom they are "in bed" so to speak.

The little guy wants this, especially if it gives their product a "distinction" of higher quality either perceived or factual.

Nothing is beyond corruption, and no guarantees can be given as long as "people" are a part of the equation. Honest businesses risk being sued on a daily basis over the most mundane of details. Our risk has gone up exponentially in the last 5 years due to implementation of the FSMA. We as producers are so accustomed to it that we would shrug it off, especially if it is legislation that helps inform people. Big Ag and Biotech have no right to keep this information from us.

This will not harm Big AG in any way. Big ag is about processing, supply lines and distribution. They don't care what they buy, as long as there is a supply. Biotech offers efficiency to the farmer through GMO cultivation. If GMO is snubbed, farmers will adapt and make what is in demand. People will still buy their products. The only loser in the deal is the Biotech Companies who don't want their products snubbed. But the Biotech Companies have a profound influence on Big Ag, and for some reason, what they say goes. It is collusion. Big Ag is the subservient spouse in the marriage.

I defend neither, I can only say what I know from experience. My industry was once the little guy, but we got gobbled up by Big AG, I now find myself the pinky-toe of the Beast.

I will never be happy about that.

reply to post by Daedalus

is that a trick question

No it isn't.
Farmers do not track the products. Farmers do not transport the products. Farmers do not process the products. Farmers don't label the products.

reply to post by Phage


You're missing the point. GMO foods which are KNOWN to be GMO, without a doubt, are required to be labeled as GMO. That is the point of the bill.

If some companies aren't sure whether it has GMO or not can label it "maybe" if they want, and those who are confident that their food does NOT contain GMO can label is "non-GMO", but that doesn't change the fact that known GMO foods MUST be labeled as such.

I don't know about you, but if I had two bags of tortilla chips, one with "GMO" on it and the other with "maybe" on it, I'd choose the one with "maybe". That's the whole point, GIVING CONSUMERS A CHOICE.

It most definitely WOULD make a difference. Stop saying it wouldn't.

reply to post by Phage


I agree Phage actually for many reasons.

Not only is it needless "red tape", but it would create a monster in itself.
And it wouldn't do anything to improve the quality of the food itself either, ironically.

Instead if the consumers would get smart and vote with their $$$ more wisely, than they could punish companies that conduct business in ways they do not like through boycott, and they could support business models they favor by being willing to incur the inconveniences that may come with it.

But since when are the masses of people going to take self-responsibility for their choices?

Sigh....

reply to post by Phage


Where should we draw the line? Labeling anything cost money yet we have detailed information on our food labels. We do this because it's a good idea. A great idea. Drawing the line at GMO, which is important to everybody, not just people who are concerned.

It is an important detail that consumers should know. Would you like to remove the basic calorie information and gluten warnings as well? What about Kosher? What about artificial sweeteners and vegan labeling?

Arguing that GMO labeling is a bad idea and citing cost as the major prohibitive just doesn't make sense. Why draw the line conveniently right before GMO?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That is the point of the bill.

What bill? Proposition 37? That isn't what it said:

The measure also requires that processed foods produced entirely or in part through genetic engineering be labeled with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

I don't know about you, but if I had two bags of tortilla chips, one with "GMO" on it and the other with "maybe" on it, I'd choose the one with "maybe".

I'll take the cheaper one.

I can see your point. You care about it GMOs. But if you really care about, it doesn't really help, does it? All you're doing is flipping a coin if you take the "may contain" box. If you're really concerned you wouldn't buy either one. If you have nut allergy you aren't going to take the product that says "may contain peanuts", are you?

reply to post by Cuervo

Arguing that GMO labeling is a bad idea and citing cost as the major prohibitive just doesn't make sense. Why draw the line conveniently right before GMO?

That is not my argument.

reply to post by Phage


I was speaking of a GMO bill that required labeling of known GMO foods. I was speaking hypothetically.

If I have a choice between 3 options, a "GMO", a "maybe", and a "non-GMO", I'd pick the "non-GMO". If there are only 2 options between "maybe" and "GMO", I would pick the maybe. If I only had the choice of "GMO", I would skip it entirely.

That's the thing about labeling, they let you know what you are or aren't eating and they give you... you know... a choice instead of no choice.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Arguing that GMO labeling is a bad idea and citing cost as the major prohibitive just doesn't make sense. Why draw the line conveniently right before GMO?

That is not my argument.

I went back and reread the OP... it seems that it's exactly your argument. The OP proposes labeling everything "may contain GMO" as a way to prevent expensive processes.

I wouldn't like to start seeing "may contain alcohol" or "may contain chicken turds" labels on my food. I like to know. It's not like GMO is the natural, default state for a food to be in so there is nothing unfair about asking for a label. If they can figure out how to genetically modify our foods and somehow avoid any meaningful unbiased research on it, I think they can manage adding a label. They are not the victims here.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

is that a trick question

No it isn't.
Farmers do not track the products. Farmers do not transport the products. Farmers do not process the products. Farmers don't label the products.

but they produce the raw materials, without which, there would be no product.

i'm fairly certain the farmer knows if he/she planted GM crops, or not...

Click here for more information.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If I have a choice between 3 options, a "GMO", a "maybe", and a "non-GMO", I'd pick the "non-GMO". If there are only options between "maybe" and "non-GMO", I would pick the maybe. If I only had the choice of "GMO", I would skip it entirely.

Ok.
But there is a problem with your hypothetical law. The same one as with what we have been talking about.

The tortilla factory doesn't know if they are using GMOs or not so they elect to used "maybe" on their lable. How do they prove that "maybe"? How do they prove that they did not know if there were GMOs in their product? So, to avoid heavy fines, they chose to use "GMO". So now we have a "GMO" label whether or not there are any GMO materials in the tortilla. Same problem. Your hypothetical law "requires" manufacturers to put the "GMO label on their product even if it may not have GMOs.

Apparently the EU law does not allow the "maybe" label at all. Probably for this very reason. It's pointless.

reply to post by Cuervo

The OP proposes labeling everything "may contain GMO" as a way to prevent expensive processes.

No. The OP says that in order to protect themselves, manufacturers will place a GMO label on their product whether or not there are GMOs in them, unless can can be absolutely sure their product does not contain GMOs. Something that is problematic.

It's not like GMO is the natural, default state for a food to be in so there is nothing unfair about asking for a label.

And I agree. If a majority of people want labeling then it should happen.
But I'm not at all convinced that mandatory labeling of GMOs would accomplish the stated goal of providing an informed consumer. How can it? If products are labeled "GMO" whether or not they contain GMOs?

The informed consumer who is concerned about GMOs would already be aware that most product do contain GMO materials. If they are not aware of that they can hardly be considered concerned. I would think that a concerned consumer would be more in favor of voluntary labeling of non-GMOs that a labeling requirement which will not really provide information that they are not already aware of.

reply to post by R3V3L4710N5

Oh, no, it wouldn't, not by a shill attempting to make a bit of a threat against someone who you have NO POWER against.

And there it is folks. Just like my new sig predicted.


Threat? I acknowledged your statement. That is a threat?

reply to post by Daedalus

i'm fairly certain the farmer knows if he/she planted GM crops, or not...

Yes. They ask for them by name.

reply to post by Phage


If they label it as "maybe" and are being truthful about not being sure, they would have no fine to pay because they aren't exactly lying about it.

Only the "KNOWN" GMO food is allowed to be labeled as GMO, those who are not sure are required to label it as "maybe", and those who are sure are required to label it as "non-GMO".

It covers all areas and all products and gives the consumer the choice of whether to eat "GMO" "maybe", or "non-GMO". Not really that hard of a concept. They already track where the food comes from and they already put labels on the food, so I see no reason why it couldn't be done.