Opinion of this image

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Water cements my point really. If hypothetically there was scaremongering around water and the industry collectively placed CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE on everything containing water: bottled water, soft drinks, leeks, cans of tuna, milk and, yes, orange juice any scaremongering would be dead in the water dihydrogen monoxide.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry, I just can't truck with the argument of "If we give people more information, they might make decisions that hurt certain businesses. Better to keep them in the dark for their own good."

Have you glanced at many ingredients labels lately? At a random glance at box dinners, cakes mixes, cans of soup or vegetables, there's all sorts of terms completely lost on a layman that sounds nuts. It doesn't stop 99% of people from eating it. Most of anything in them is completely harmless and will almost never hurt a person's health. But we include that information because we believe consumers have a right to know what they're buying.

Refusing to tell people certain things are in their food only reinforces the perception that big business interests are trying to get one over on them. That it's something they have to hide. Start slapping an asterisk saying a product has been genetically modified on every other item in the produce section and people will move on with their lives, realizing that lettuce they've been eating since they were 9 hasn't made them grow a toe on their forehead, and they'll move on. Maybe some incredibly small portion of the public will adjust their buying habits, but that's their prerogative. It wouldn't "confuse" consumers anymore than what they already see is in the food they buy. What else should we hide? That there's titanium dioxide in pizza crusts?

[/]

GMO hysteria really is one of the worst things about the modern American left.

^^^

This. 

^^^

This.

[The Free North]

I don't think labeling is that big of an issue that it needs to be mandated from Washington.


If you want to eat non-GMO food there are brands that do that already.

[Mehmentum]

Start slapping an asterisk saying a product has been genetically modified on every other item in the produce section and people will move on with their lives, realizing that lettuce they've been eating since they were 9 hasn't made them grow a toe on their forehead, and they'll move on.

Alternatively, we could see what happened with vaccines.  People use vaccines as a scapegoat for their problems (autism, in this case).  I doubt that labeling products as GMO would do anything to quell this perception, if anything it would perpetuate it as people begin wonder 'what if 'x' is because of this cereal I've been eating for years?'

[bedstuy]

I'm sorry, I just can't truck with the argument of "If we give people more information, they might make decisions that hurt certain businesses. Better to keep them in the dark for their own good."

Have you glanced at many ingredients labels lately? At a random glance at box dinners, cakes mixes, cans of soup or vegetables, there's all sorts of terms completely lost on a layman that sounds nuts. It doesn't stop 99% of people from eating it. Most of anything in them is completely harmless and will almost never hurt a person's health. But we include that information because we believe consumers have a right to know what they're buying.

Refusing to tell people certain things are in their food only reinforces the perception that big business interests are trying to get one over on them. That it's something they have to hide. Start slapping an asterisk saying a product has been genetically modified on every other item in the produce section and people will move on with their lives, realizing that lettuce they've been eating since they were 9 hasn't made them grow a toe on their forehead, and they'll move on. Maybe some incredibly small portion of the public will adjust their buying habits, but that's their prerogative. It wouldn't "confuse" consumers anymore than what they already see is in the food they buy. What else should we hide? That there's titanium dioxide in pizza crusts?

They should list the ingredients and the nutritional information on food.  They shouldn't be forced to list anything else.  That's common sense. 

And, the fact is we already have GMO labeling in America.  Anything that is non-GMO tends to have a non-GMO certified seal.  That solves the informational problem without any government involvement.

Here's the other harm: 
Thousands and thousands of food labels would be changed for a spurious, useless reason.  That's very simple on a micro-level, yes.  But, for the entire food industry to find out whether they use GMO crops in their food and change their labels, it adds up.  When added to the potential cost of companies changing to more expensive non-GMO crops, it would be significant. 

We don't know the exact cost.  But, let's take a conservative guess from a pro-GMO labeling group.  They found it to be $2.30 per person per year.  319 million Americans X $2.3 = $734 million dollars.  That's a significant waste of money.

[Simfan34]

Ask poor old gluten what can happen to you when you become the target of fearmongering.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Do we put big labels on food if they have too many carbohydrates or saturated fat?  No.  Then why should we go out of our way to single out something that has absolutely no effect on our well being?   

[Boston Bread]

Mildly negative, labelling isn't that bad of a position. It'll cause unnecessary scare but in the long run people will get used to it. People already don't care much the chemicals they don't know about on labels, so eventually GMO labels will receive the same treatment. If he called for banning GMOs then that would be cause for alarm.

[Figueira]

Do we put big labels on food if they have too many carbohydrates or saturated fat?  No.  Then why should we go out of our way to single out something that has absolutely no effect on our well being?   

Is anyone advocating "big" labels? I always assumed it would be a _{This product may contain ingredients that have been genetically modified} type deal.

[Famous Mortimer]

Do we put big labels on food if they have too many carbohydrates or saturated fat?  No.  Then why should we go out of our way to single out something that has absolutely no effect on our well being?   

These things ARE labeled.

[EliteLX]

I'm shocked and disappointed my fellow republicans have a negative perspective on this. Parents absolutely have the right to know whether their family's food is mutated by man or whether they are eating fresh grown crops and such. Regardless of your views on the harmfulness of GMOs, they absolutely have a right.

A shame.

[bedstuy]

I'm shocked and disappointed my fellow republicans have a negative perspective on this. Parents absolutely have the right to know whether their family's food is mutated by man or whether they are eating fresh grown crops and such. Regardless of your views on the harmfulness of GMOs, they absolutely have a right.

A shame.

Everything in our diet is mutated by man, aside from wild game, fish and shellfish.  Right?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Do we put big labels on food if they have too many carbohydrates or saturated fat?  No.  Then why should we go out of our way to single out something that has absolutely no effect on our well being?   

Is anyone advocating "big" labels? I always assumed it would be a _{This product may contain ingredients that have been genetically modified} type deal.

I was thinking of a big sticker or something, at least that's what was talked about I think. 

[NeverAgain]

I really do not care if I am eating horse sh**t, I at least deserve the right to have a note on my food that it has horsesh**t. Bad example, but my point is that I don't care about GMO's at all, but some people do so why shouldn't we put a label that warns those people about it. If it is such a big deal for these corporations to put a little warning label on their food, it really gives a bad image for those people wondering if GMO's are harmful or not.

[bedstuy]

You people are being crazy.

There is no limit to what you could require on labels.  You require food labels to state where the food was grown, what fertilizers and pesticides were used, what the phase of the moon was when it was harvested.  And, some people might want to know that information.  It shouldn't be required unless it's relevant to the consumer. 

As I quoted before, this change would cost upwards of $700 million per year to adopt.  Also, that number is from the pro-GMO labeling crowd.  We could easily be talking about one billion dollars per year.  And, it would have no benefit whatsoever for consumers.  Not only that, non-GMO products already list that on their label!  So, people who want non-GMO food can just buy food with a non-GMO certified label, problem solved.  Why waste $700 million to solve a non-issue which, in fact, already has a solution?

[NeverAgain]

You people are being crazy.

There is no limit to what you could require on labels.  You require food labels to state where the food was grown, what fertilizers and pesticides were used, what the phase of the moon was when it was harvested.  And, some people might want to know that information.  It shouldn't be required unless it's relevant to the consumer. 

As I quoted before, this change would cost upwards of $700 million per year to adopt.  Also, that number is from the pro-GMO labeling crowd.  We could easily be talking about one billion dollars per year.  And, it would have no benefit whatsoever for consumers.  Not only that, non-GMO products already list that on their label!  So, people who want non-GMO food can just buy food with a non-GMO certified label, problem solved.  Why waste $700 million to solve a non-issue which, in fact, already has a solution?

Sources, I cannot imagine it being $700 million for a simple relabeling.

[7,052,770]

Perhaps there should be a label on the food stating the race of the farmhand who picked the crop! People have the right to know if black/Mexican hands have touched their food! ITS THEIR RIGHT!!

[bedstuy]

You people are being crazy.

There is no limit to what you could require on labels.  You require food labels to state where the food was grown, what fertilizers and pesticides were used, what the phase of the moon was when it was harvested.  And, some people might want to know that information.  It shouldn't be required unless it's relevant to the consumer.  

As I quoted before, this change would cost upwards of $700 million per year to adopt.  Also, that number is from the pro-GMO labeling crowd.  We could easily be talking about one billion dollars per year.  And, it would have no benefit whatsoever for consumers.  Not only that, non-GMO products already list that on their label!  So, people who want non-GMO food can just buy food with a non-GMO certified label, problem solved.  Why waste $700 million to solve a non-issue which, in fact, already has a solution?

Sources, I cannot imagine it being $700 million for a simple relabeling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/06/would-gmo-labeling-requirement-cost-500-more-in-groceries-per-family-a-year/

It would not be simple at all.  Farmers would have to change how they store their crops and keep GMO and non-GMO crops segregated.  The entire farming system would have to change.  Farmers would have to carefully monitor whether they choose GMO or non-GMO.  They would have to segregate those crops.  Farmers costs would go up significantly.  Further down the chain, grain elevators would have to choose to store either GMO or non-GMO.  This would raise crops storage costs.  These costs would probably filter down the system too.

And, then there's the production end, you would have to change every food label.  Producers would have to research their supply chain and change their label if they ever use GMO crops.  They would not be able to use a mix of GMO and non-GMO and they would need compliance mechanisms to ensure that.  And, then you have compliance costs of regulators, lawyers, auditors, etc.  Honestly, one billion dollars per year seems like a low estimate to me.  If you look at the the high estimate from the WaPo article, it would be $159 billion per year.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

If we're going to force a $1 billion change on food labeling, let's show something that could actually be informative and lead to healthier choices. Like requiring sugar's percentage of daily value to be shown on all food products. 

[King]

GMO fear doesn't even make sense. Our digestion process breaks down all DNA in the food we consume into amino acids and any we can't break down just gets sh**t out. By the small intestines, the difference between GMO food and non-GMO food is nonexistent.

We might as well start labeling the color of feathers on the chicken the breasts were taken from or the elevation of the land the broccoli was farmed.

[bedstuy]

I blame all those 90s movies where a corporation took science too far and it lead to an action movie.  That taught the public that we should fear science.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seemed pretty reasonable to me, I think then consumers can just look on the back for their non-GMO items, without all the time and money being put into making sure GMO labeling is there. BTW thank you bedstuy for the source, found it very interesting to learn about this subject.

[Figueira]

It's interesting that whenever the GMO debate comes up, nobody considers the possibility that there are other issues at stake besides the health of the people eating them.

[NeverAgain]

It's interesting that whenever the GMO debate comes up, nobody considers the possibility that there are other issues at stake besides the health of the people eating them.

What do you mean?