Concerns, or unsubtantiated fears?
**
It could also demonstrate that many folks are ignorant about what “genetically modified” means. And people fear what they don’t understand.
If there is no substantial difference, then why should it matter whether the tomato you eat is “all natural” (which is meaningless for most agricultural crops anyway), or “genetically modified”? How would you be harmed by the purchase of the latter, even if you did not realize that was the case?
If it’s part of someone’s decision making process, then it’s important. Just because it’s not part of yours is irrelevant to me and my decision making process.
Usefulness is a value judgement made by the consumer. Truthfulness is required for the consumer to make their decision.
Back to the kosher foods example. There’s no nutritional difference between foods blessed by a Rabbi and those that aren’t, but if I was selling food in Israel, I would think a kosher label is important.
Did I say “GMO” must be in huge bright red letters? Did I even call it a “warning” label?
Simply tell us what it is. Something like,“contains caffeine”.
Missing the point?
If people want to use the fact that their “beliefs” would prevent them from consuming certain foods if they knew they were GM that’s one thing.
Requiring the government to mandate labelling based on nothing more than those unsubstantiated “beliefs” is quite another. We should not let naturalistic superstition become the arbiter of government labelling programs; save it for something important.
Who are you to judge. As I said, they may not be fearful at all, they simply don’t like the idea of it.
So it’s up to us to protect them from what they don’t understand? We must bathe them in their own ignorance because they aren’t grown-up enough to handle the truth. :rolleyes:
It’s not necessarily a matter of being harmed but a matter of being decieved.
Suppose I buy a knockoff music CD of my favorite artist. It looks and sounds the same as the one distributed the artist’s label and I will enjoy the music all the same, but I would still prefer to buy the one put out by the artist.
How about labeling the country of origin for products? I can’t scientifically determine the difference between stereo made in the US over one made in Korea, but it might be a part of my decision making process. It’s possible you could argue for free-trade and the competitive disadvantage labeling country of origin causes, but if it’s important to people, then let them know.
Importance is yet another value judgement. One that you would prefer to make for others.
As far as I’m concerned the truth is the truth, and I don’t see anything wrong with requiring manufacturers to tell the truth about their product. Nor do I see any reason to protect the Bio-Science industry from it’s bad PR.
If people don’t want GMO, don’t sell it to them without them knowing! I don’t care what their reasons are.
I don’t recal judging anyone. I simply posed the question. And I will pose another: if they are not fearful, then why would they “simply [not] like the idea of it”?
**
Did I say that? No. I said (or implied) that the possibility exists that the cry for labelling is borne of fear, not of knowledge.
**
Or, one could argue that there are substantive differences in workmanship quality, depending on the country of origin. In which case, yes, labelling the country of origin is useful for the consumer. However, you (or anyone else) have not demonstrated any substantive difference in quality between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods. As such, how will such a label benefit the consumer, especially if that consumer is largely ignorant about the whys and wherefores of what “genetically modified” really means? Or, to put it another way: how would such a label affect your choice?
Because they like the idea of eating what they’ve eaten their whole lives. Why try the GMO when you’re not dissatisfied with what you have? This isn’t fear, they just simply don’t have a reason to eat GMO.
It’s an aesthetic choice too. Tell someone that there’s mice genes in their tomato and they may not want to eat it. This doesn’t mean they think they’ll get cancer, they just don’t want to eat it. You could make a toilet bowl perfectly sanitary, but that doesn’t mean people will eat soup out of it.
And yes, maybe if you sat down with them and tried to make them feel good about eating a mouse/tomato you could convince them to eat it, but you haven’t yet . In the mean time, they have the right to make a decision on any grounds they see fit.
Quality is another subjective choice. Some GMO corn makes its own pesticide. Now you can assure me that the pesticide will break down safely in my digestive system. But I don’t want buy assurances, I want to buy corn not corn filled with pesticide.
Why do they have to understand genetic engineering to go grocery shopping? If they want to make a judgment about GMO foods, who are we to say whether or not it “benefits” them?
I have yet to be given a good reason to eat GMO foods and until I am, I would prefer not to.
**
Of course those of us who make a living growing these crops might have a reason to grow GM crops.
**
I wonder. If I grow BT corn without the use of pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizer could I still sell it as organic?
Then buy from people who advertise their foods as being GM free.
Marc
I’m sure you do have your reasons.
AFAIK Organic labeled foods are also non GMO. Although what you said is a contradiction anyway since BT corn produces pesticides.
Certainly, I will when I’m given a choice. But many people wouldn’t know that the one labeled “non-GMO” is any different the other products on the shelves because they don’t know whether they’re GMO or not.
But… but… but then how can I force people to act freely?
Boy, you are the king of one liners. I guess that saves you from having to back up you opinion or even clearly state it.
**
Yep, I can preserve topsoil, save money on fuel, save money on pesticide/herbicides, and increase my profits per acre.
Does it matter? If they’re at all concerned they’ll choose the ones labeled non-GM. The solution is simple, require non-GM foods to label themselves.
Marc
King of one-liners! Ho.Lee.Shit. I’m coming for ya, Fenris, no holds barred!!!*
Actually, my opinion was stated rather seriously, along with many posters now, at least a whole page ago. It basically amounted to:
If you think there is something to distinguish between GM foods and non GM foods, please tell us what that is. What difference are you indicating that is useful? Is there a risk of illness? Is there a lack of nutrients absorbed into the system? More prone to parasites? Liable to cause brain lesions? What.will.this.label.indicate?
I am not opposed to labels indicating the quality of the food that has been determined to be harmful to my health, this is useful; I am not opposed to labels indicating nutritional information so that I can be healthy; I am not opposed to brand names; I am not opposed to any marketing gimmics by the company. Does your desire for a label indicating genetically modified foods fall under any of these categories? How?
Somehow I don’t think that’s quite what you meant. Perhaps you meant to say allow non-GMo food producers to label it themselves.
Well of course they’re allowed to do this, but now they have to abide by strict regulationsjust to prove that they’re selling normal food. Why should the burden be on them exclusively if at all?
If non-GMO producers have to deal with government regulations to accurately represent what they’re selling, why are the GMO producer’s exempt?
Normal food? Versus what, food we can’t digest? Versus food that has no nutritional content? What?
erislover
Thanks for addressing me with your opinions directly and I’m actually glad you found a complement in my last reply.
If GMO is not a concern for you, I won’t try to make it a concern. I’m not trying to convince you it is dangerous. But on the other hand, other people find this information important and they have a right to an informed decision regardless of your opinion.
There is a lot of information provided about food products that does not mean the food is unhealthy. Back to the food coloring. I don’t have to think food coloring causes cancer or decreases the nutritiousness of my food to have a desire to know if artificial colors were added.
Your condition of demonstrated harmfulness for labelling is not necessary and it is not shared by all. Selling people foods that they wouldn’t buy if it was accurately labeled is dishonest.
Would you also say in order to require having an ingredient listed it must be proven to cause health problems? This would be a significant change in the staus quo.
No, and I did forget to list ingredients up there in my post (oops), so people with allergies can avoid reactions. This has a use.
And what, precisely, will knowing that it is a GM food be informing them of?
If GM isn’t a concern at all, then it doesn’t need to be mentioned on a label. It is not a “new ingredient”, it is still—well, corn, for example. I like corn, let’s stick with corn. I don’t want to say it is a distinction without any difference, I just want to know: what’s the difference? Why can’t people who agree with you follow MGibson’s suggestion and just label a food Non-GM. You’ll then know they have your opinions in mind, and I won’t have to care.
Versus GMO food of course.
If there were no difference between GMO and non-GMO we wouldn’t have GMO to begin with. You can maintain they are nutritionally similar and have no known side-effects but they are still different. Otherwise, what would Monsanto have a patent on?
If you think food has to be undigestable, demonstrably dangerous or non-nutritional to be labeled that’s your opinion. Currently though we recieve a lot more information about our food than that through labeling and I see nothing wrong with it.
If people have shown a significant interest in knowing, then it should be provided.
No, first left, then right… 
Maybe I better wait until you’ve responded to all my posts before I start replying again.