- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I say 'Good!'. People have a basic human right to know what they're ingesting. Whether they make good or bad choices is on them.
I say 'Good!'. People have a basic human right to know what they're ingesting. Whether they make good or bad choices is on them.
I say 'Good!'. People have a basic human right to know what they're ingesting. Whether they make good or bad choices is on them.
Probably correct. So what?My feeling about this is people don't even have basic knowledge about GMOs in the first place so it just reinforces their belief that they shouldn't be ingesting them, if a food is labelled like that. BTW, the notion that a label called GMO educates consumers about what is in their food is a false narrative because all GMO label does, is say GMO! :lamo
I say 'Good!'. People have a basic human right to know what they're ingesting. Whether they make good or bad choices is on them.
I say 'Good!'. People have a basic human right to know what they're ingesting. Whether they make good or bad choices is on them.
Probably correct. So what?
Those that do can be clued in to do some more research.
The only logical way a person can be against labeling GMOs is to be against ALL labeling, and that's illogical.
The only logical way a person can be against labeling GMOs is to be against ALL labeling, and that's illogical.
Yep. They have a right to know. But why not allow the poor cheaper food and let the people that want expensive stuff label the higher standards.
I find the increased cost argument to be nothing but a red herring. Companies relabel all the time for multitudes of reasons. Maybe for a limited time promotional offer, or to add a pink ribbon to show how socially cool they are, or to change the size to a lower amount so they can raise the price without raising the price, or just because they want a new look, and so many more.Yep. They have a right to know. But why not allow the poor cheaper food and let the people that want expensive stuff label the higher standards. That would have the advantage that those selling bio foods would have to state clearly, what it meant and face fraud charges , if they misrepresent their product.
Besides, almost every food contains genetically improved organisms at one level of the production chain or another. So labeling just increases costs of most products.
Doesn't have to be on the front. People make stupid AND smart decisions all the time.No. Someone can be against labeling things for the sole purpose of fear mongering.
But as long as the label can be on the back of the product and normal sized I don't care. I just don't want a huge "GMO" stamp on the front, as it would scare stupid people into making silly decisions.
My feeling about this is people don't even have basic knowledge about GMOs in the first place so it just reinforces their belief that they shouldn't be ingesting them, if a food is labelled like that. BTW, the notion that a label called GMO educates consumers about what is in their food is a false narrative because all GMO label does, is say GMO! :lamo
Labels should reveal things that are scientifically relevant to the contents of the package. GMO foods have been proven perfectly safe to eat; the only real debate is on whether there's a point in using them when they don't seem to meaningfully impact crop yields (similarly, debates on the volume and types of fertilizers and other chemicals used on GMO and non-GMO crops respectively). People will irrationally respond to "GMO" labels by not buying the foods because it's bad for them, but that's only because they don't actually know the truth. It's one of the instances where more information actually distorts markets, rather than makes them more efficient (as is usually the case).
This is somewhat similar to responding to anti-vaxxers by requiring doctors to distribute pamphlets to patients stating that vaccines contain mercury and listing why mercury is bad to ingest. Factually true, but irrelevant, because vaccines do not cause autism (or other problems) via mercury.
Labeling things as GMO isn't going to change any of that. The label isn't going to hurt GMO production, it won't end it. People who can afford differently or care can avoid it, others won't.
So why is it when you break a fluorescent bulb that has mercury in it that you technically have to call a hazmat team to do the clean up, if mercury was harmless in small doses.
My feeling about this is people don't even have basic knowledge about GMOs in the first place so it just reinforces their belief that they shouldn't be ingesting them, if a food is labelled like that. BTW, the notion that a label called GMO educates consumers about what is in their food is a false narrative because all GMO label does, is say GMO! :lamo
I find the increased cost argument to be nothing but a red herring. Companies relabel all the time for multitudes of reasons. Maybe for a limited time promotional offer, or to add a pink ribbon to show how socially cool they are, or to change the size to a lower amount so they can raise the price without raising the price, or just because they want a new look, and so many more.
Your point is "ignorance is bliss"?It is not only the label. Behind it there is required a chain of logistics including legally robust guarantees all the way back to the small farm that sold the corn to a small farm raising cows for breeding up through separate storage in separate buildings etc. Red herrings look differently.
Probably correct. So what?
Those that do can be clued in to do some more research.
The only logical way a person can be against labeling GMOs is to be against ALL labeling, and that's illogical.
I guess I don't really care as the cost of labeling something isn't prohibitive, but this doesn't seem like something that is necessary.
That is why the labeling is so stupid. The only difference will be a higher price tag on ordinary food for the logistics of proper labeling.
The same argument was used against nutrition labels, too...yet a lot of people DO read the labels and use them to make better choices - I know I do.
What you're basically doing is arguing for less education, instead of more. But then, it's your vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence who believed that "smoking doesn't kill". I guess he would have been against labels on cigarette packs that warns people that yeah, smoking DOES kill.
Yeah, according to y'all, less education is better. Orwell would've loved y'all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?