4 ms·

Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than th

Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)? Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.

danbruc 10y ago
Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Just like halal and kosher food makers, non-GMO food makers can include it on the box. As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    If everyone would label their non-GMO products that would maybe do, but what stops companies from putting non-GMO labels on GMO products if it is not enforced by some law? It also seems a bit backwards, why would one label all non-GMO products if one want's to know which products contain GMOs? That's a bit like labeling everything without honey as honey-free and not labeling honey and products containing honey. And we were already there - it is not you but a nonnegligible fraction of the population.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      No one is opposed to requiring non-GMO labels to be accurate, just like all other advertising. What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non-Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate in someone else's marketing scheme.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc. What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
        danbruc 10y ago
        What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it. Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for? People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable. If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.
belorn 10y ago
If there isn't already a law to identify when a animal was slaughted in a ritual manner, I would not be against it. Its the same as letting the consumer know that the eggs are from free range hens.

danbruc 10y ago

Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Just like halal and kosher food makers, non-GMO food makers can include it on the box. As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.
- danbruc 10y ago
  If everyone would label their non-GMO products that would maybe do, but what stops companies from putting non-GMO labels on GMO products if it is not enforced by some law? It also seems a bit backwards, why would one label all non-GMO products if one want's to know which products contain GMOs? That's a bit like labeling everything without honey as honey-free and not labeling honey and products containing honey. And we were already there - it is not you but a nonnegligible fraction of the population.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    No one is opposed to requiring non-GMO labels to be accurate, just like all other advertising. What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non-Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate in someone else's marketing scheme.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc. What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
        danbruc 10y ago
        What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it. Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for? People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable. If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.

belorn 10y ago

If there isn't already a law to identify when a animal was slaughted in a ritual manner, I would not be against it. Its the same as letting the consumer know that the eggs are from free range hens.