3 ms·

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 b

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.

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.