Yes. In fact, it was right there in the quote:
There’s an obvious difference between “unapproved” and “harmful”.
So what is the “usual anti-Mugabe” rhetoric?
That Mugabe’s thugs routinely beat and kill opposition leaders and pro-democracy advocates? booooooring
That Mugabe has destroyed his country’s agricultural system and brought his nation to the brink of starvation by throwing white farmers off their land without compensation, and giving the land to his wife and other cronies, who don’t farm it - even though Great Britain was funding a compensated resettlement program, but insisted that the land go to people who would actually use it for farming? Been there, done that.
That Mugabe has managed to destroy freedom of the press, the judicial system, the economy, and social peace, just to cling to power for a few more years? Oh… puh-lease!
I don’t know who these people are, but their willingness to cursorily dismiss the evil that Mugabe has committed just because Mugabe supports them on one issue has pushed me a huge step towards the anti-labelling crowd.
:mad:
Sua
So, you think there’s no benefit from labeling foods “organic”, “wheat free”, “sugar free”, “caffeine free”, or “fat free” or “anything else added/free?”
How is this different? On the most basic level, it’s a marketing ploy. There’s nothing wrong with sugar, but you don’t hear Hawaii voicing concerns over labeling things “sugar free?”
I certainly wouldn’t care if they labelled food this way.
Not if the labels are meaningless or misleading.
So, you would actively choose to deny consumers the right to know as much as they can about the food they eat, because you don’t like the way one contingent of a certain group of people responded to a particular issue. Great.
Nothing can be misleading about the fact of whether or not the food your are buying is GMO.
As for meaningless, take a walk around your grocery store. You’ll probably see a whole lot of meaningless stuff. It’s called advertising. Just because something’s meaningless, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed. That’s obvious.
I’m going to add a new rule to chess. The rule is: when picking up a pice for movement, one must rotate it 360 degrees before placing it down.
First, I think it should be demonstrated that genetically modified foods represent something different than bred hybrids. Given a measurable difference, this fact of difference should be labeled as any other difference (vitamin content, for example).
Perhaps, in addittion to labelling foods as GM or not, we should also indicate from which region of the US they are grown? Say, a rectangle described by diagonal corners marked in latitute and longitude? After all, perhaps then we could get a feel for which farmers produce the best food, and this labelling would serve to inform consumers of something I suspect but cannot factually demonstrate…
The difference is, these labels are all voluntary. Mandatory labeling implies that there might be something wrong with the product.
That said, I think that there should be some sort of different way to write the ingredients list, such as “GM wheat” vs “wheat.”
Is anybody requiring that products be prominently labeled “Contains Sugar” “Contains Fat” “Inorganically Grown” etc.? We used to have cereals named Sugar Frosted Flakes and Super Sugar Crisp, they have been renamed to remove “Sugar” from the box. Do you really think the companies would be happy to slap on a government required sugar label? All those labels you listed are considered “positive” statements about the food product, and are voluntary. A GMO label would be considered negative to the vast majority of the population, and would be required.
What is misleading is the idea that GMO foods are something that needs extra labeling. It suggests that they are unsafe, and consumers need labels in order to avoid them if need be. What other possible reason is there to label them except to give consumers “warning” that they may be consuming it? It’s practically like putting a label that says “Dangerous Food Product” on it. There is no evidence that these products are dangerous, therefore there is no reason to warn anyone about them.
This neither makes sense, nor answers my question. Are you, or are you not, saying that consumers do not have the right to know as much as possible about the food they are buying?
Isn’t that the most basic tenant of a free market? The consumers get to choose, not the suppliers.
Also, yes, here in Japan, all produce is labeled with a country of origin. I happen to know that DDT is still widely used as a pesticide in China. So I choose not to buy produce that is exported form China. You might think that’s silly, which is fine, but in no way negates my right to know as much as possible about what I’m spending my money on.
BTW, in thinking about this for a moment, a “High Fat Food” or “High Sugar Food” label would be far more beneficial to the health of the populace than anything regarding genetic enhancement.
AFAIK suppliers have the legal right to label foods as “GM free” just as they have the right to label them “sugar-free”. That’s the way it ought to work in a free market. Then consumers who care about this can buy the GM-free food (and leave the better stuff for the rest of us :))
The government ought not to require labeling that is useless, according to the best current scientific knowledge.
There’s nothing harmful in frozen broccoli, but food companies are still required to include the RDA stats on every bad. There’s nothing harmful about breakfast cereal, but companies must still provide a list of ingredients? Why? So the consumer can make an informed decision. That’s the bottom line. It’s almost impossible that one could become obese by eating fruit roll-ups, but the companies must still provide detailed accounts of calories and sugars. Yes, sugars are not necessarily harmful. But they can be. And because they can be, some consumers choose not to buy items that contain sugar. It’s their choice. Can’t you see that you’re arguing for individuals not to have a choice, and not to have the chance to vote for their beliefs with their money?
Your label implies a difference between a product made with GM corn and a product made with non-GM corn. A difference important enough to place prominently on the packaging. In my view, there is NO appreciable difference, and I don’t want the GM corn product to be unfairly “discriminated” against. If GM corn is dangerous, take it off the market, if it isn’t, let it compete on a level playing field. Placing a label on it implies that it is a lesser product than the standard, when it isn’t.
This is a similar debate, IMHO to “irradiated” foods. Meats treated with radiation to kill bacteria may be safer than non treated meats, but just try and slap an Irradiated label on some ground beef and sell it.
Are you, or are you not, indicating that genetically modified foods in fact are different from non-GM foods in either:
- Taste (probably not going to be labeled)
- nutrients (already labeled)
- ???
My point about chess is: what do you want this to indicate? That is, after all, the purpose of a label: to give information that can be put to use. We don’t, for example, list the adhesive on the stickers Chiquita puts on their stickers. Why is this? Are they hiding something? Or would it not serve any purpose?
You want to distinguish non-GM foods from GM ones. From what I can gather, it is only for the sake of being able to distinguish GM foods from non-GM ones. Fine: go ahead and push for that. But information for the sake of […] is, to me, worth more than information for the sake of information.
…puts on their bananas. :smack:
Soup_du_jour, Cheesesteak, Duck Duck Goose – I like your posts, but I’ve been on a diet for the last 6 weeks. Seeing your names appear in a thread about food is driving me nuts. 
>> the most basic tenant of a free market?
The most basic tenant will pay his rent on time and will eat anything you give him.
I suspect in the end, this will become a lot like the organic food niche market. Just as with organic food, there is not a huge amount of evidence that shows that GM vs. non-GM food makes a whole lot of difference (although to be fair, we have not really had enough time for rigorous longitudinal studies).
That being the case, eventually the regular grocery stores will notice that the specialty food stores are making money on food labeled as not genetically modifies and start getting in on the game and it will become increasingly mainstream.
I guess the bottom line is that the average consumer will tend to not trust the same companies that brought us DDT and Mad Cow Disease to dork around with the DNA of the food that we eat.