[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch *
And don’t you get that labelling costs money? Who do you think will ultimately pay for that labelling? The consumer!
[QUOTE]
Don’t foods already have labels? All that’s changing is what’s written on them. How much do you expect it to rise and why? Please cite.
This would be of course on a simple “Contains GMO” label that I am talking about.
How nice of you to make that decision for them.
It’s not obvious to me why people make any consumer decision. I don’t want to second guess them and don’t see why I should. If they want to know then they should be told.
I haven’t made any decision for anyone – the FDA made that decision. And, if you had read the article I linked to much earlier (wherein the FDA’s stance on the topic is mentioned), you would see that they largely agree that there’s no real point, except in certain circumstances.
I did read that article and my reasoning is not based on contending with the FDA’s opinion on it’s safety.
My apologies for the coding on my last reply buried in what appeared to be one long quote from you was this:
Don’t foods already have labels? All that’s changing is what’s written on them. How much do you expect it to rise and why? Please cite.
This would be of course on a simple “Contains GMO” label that I am talking about.
errata, an economic argument is interesting. I’ve been thinking about it more. But it seems to me that you’ve got the deception on the wrong foot. Requiring a label that dicated genetically modified food would almost be like false advertizing (it wouldn’t be, but it would be like it) in the sense that people would be compelled to think the label actually indicated something, when in fact no one has demonstrated what it really indicates.
People’s unfavorableor uninformed impressions about GMO are Monsanto and Co.'s concern and responsibility. I see no reason to protect them from consumer’s preferences. I also don’t see how there awareness will grow if they don’t know what they’re eating.
As far as a noticable difference, we both know it’s there. Otherwise why would people grow them? There may in fact be positive differences such as rice with higher nutritional content. So there are differences. Assigning significance to these differences should ultimately be the individual consumer’s choice.
Maybe they could take an alternate route. “Bt Corn: Now with supergenes!”,
“The To-Mouse-To! None of the unwanted rodent genetic material with the great taste of Tomato!”
But the novel qualities they are usually shooting for are not consumer-based, but farmer based. Still the label would tell us nothing. That would be like putting a label on bananas that said, “Grows well in tropics”
Neither do I. You are free to go to a health food store, like the high-priced Fresh Fields supermarket chain, where they have a no-GM policy. The consumers who really care, and can afford it, already avoid GM food.
But almost all development of new horticultural varieties aims at producing more food at less cost. This is just as true for the varieties over at Fresh Fields. So why should only GM food have to be labeled to say that it was breed to get higher yield per acre? Is is getting worse and worse.
But, errata, I see a reason to protect consumers from a meaningless bias. Capitalism works based on the information available to consumers. This label offers nothing in the guise of information. This is not fair, either.
We can’t know in advance. However, let’s be real. GM food is already banned in most countries, even those in desparate need of cheaper imported food and higher yields for domestic agriculture. This tells me that people are easily convinced of the false idea that this breeding technique causes severe health problems, even worse, apparently, than starvation. Hope I am wrong, but under these circumstances of world opinion, I would predict such government mandated labeling in the U.S. would be the last nail in the coffin for this particular breeding technique, and any other that can be painted with the same brush, for many decades into the future. Millions will probably starve as a result, just as large numbers have died due to excessive concern over DDT (see Cecil’s recent column). Might GM die even without the mandated labels? Yes, but mandated labels, sending people the message that their government is concerned, makes it more likely.
Labeling GM foods matters because there are infinintely many true, but pointless, things that could be required on a label. However, if the number becomes fairly large, then nobody will read the label and it will be useless. That’s what already happens to a lot of product warning labels that are intended to help forestall liability claims.
Since there’s nothing wrong with eating GM foods, it would make as much sense to require that foods be labeled as free of non-Kosher ingrediants, or free of ingrediants from Idaho, or free of all foods beginning with a vowel, or all foods of seven letters or more, etc.
When our best science says that information is useless, the government ought not to require it.
Not so… just because it’s aimed at the grower doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant to the consumer. The only modified produce I, personally, would tend to avoid would be crops that have been made resistant to herbicides, and “BT-enhanced” veggies. I’d still be interested in knowing what, exactly, has been altered about the other stuff, even though I doubt any of it would concern me. You can bet when GM products have consumer benefits, we’ll know about it. Got lachrymatory-factor-synthase-free onions yet? I’ll buy those.
As you say, though, most GM alterations won’t matter one way or t’other to consumers-- any product that looks decent and is priced competitively is going to fine.
Even though it would support my argument in some ways, I have to question whether or not GMO’s are banned in most countries. Labeled maybe, but banned I think would be a stretch.
You’re just hurting yourself here. You’ve avoided providing one cite and invited another. How many millions will starve? What evidence do you have?
BTW Cecil’s column doesn’t say millions have died due to excessive concen over DDT. It says “Malaria currently infects 300 to 500 million people annually, mostly in Africa, and causes as many as 2.7 million deaths.” Malaria kills people not concern over DDT. Just two sentences later Cecil’s article also says “India, which still uses it, suffered nasty outbreaks of malaria in the 90s, and insects in many parts of that country have become resistant to the chemical.” So DDT use does not automatically mean people don’t die from malaria. Cecil was making a careful argument saying it’s benefits might outweigh risks not making a sweeping statement blaming hand-wringing on millions of deaths.
But what none of these properties shares in common with GMO is that they probably wouldn’t matter to people when you asked them. Also, foods beginnning with a vowel and having 7 letters are already labeled as such
Scientists are not the majority of shoppers, nor are they making the same decisions that consumers make. There is a scientific opinion over the safety of GMO but not one over it’s labeling. The labeling is a governmental/political decision which I believe should be based on consumer preferences not industrial ones.
errata, your last sentence frames this issue as consumers vs. industry, which is valid POV, as far as it goes. However, in this case, the scientists are on the side of industry, so the issue could also be framed as consumers vs. knowledge.
We live in a democracy, so I would agree that if the majority of voters want GMO labeling, they should get it. And, it the majority want astrological information on their food, they should get that. But, we don’t have to approve or encourange these choices. We, like Cecil, ought to be fighting ignorance.
Look up L-tryptophan made by the Japanese company Showa Denko. They used GMO bacteria in their supplements, and 37 people died as a result, and thousands were left with permanent disabilities. Why? Insufficient testing. Insufficient screening. General disregard for the humans who buy their products.
More research should have been done before GMO foods were unleashed on the market. Why do you think that the rest of the world is so mistrusting of GMO foods?
I think you are asking more than science should be asked to with that angle. Science is in no position to make judgements such as “meaningfulness” or “usefullness” of labeling. It can assure truthfulness, accuracy, and safety however.
Not labeling only increases ignorance and sidesteps the issue in my opinion.
If GMO was an attractive label rather than an unnattractive one don’t you think Monsanto would be spending millions right now to enact GMO labeling laws? I mean anyone could put GMO on their products.“Modified” can be a vague term without legal definitions. Monsanto would be right to seek this protection even if they didn’t have demonstrated nutritional differences in their products. Makers of non-gmo products should have the same resources available.
Anyway it’s been fun. I’m leaving computer access for a few weeks, but I’ll check back to see how the discussion went.
