4 ms·

Labels != harmful product Again like the food industry fight against nutritional labels and ingredient lists/disclosures. Labels inform consumer choices and f

Labels != harmful product Again like the food industry fight against nutritional labels and ingredient lists/disclosures. Labels inform consumer choices and food industry does not want that. It’s that simple. Sure it costs money to add labels...so what? If you don’t want to dish out the added costs don’t use gmos. Seems to me most companies love spending money on labels and do so voluntarily all the time (organic, heart healthy, nut free, fat free/low fat, source of vitamin...) they just don’t like disclosing things that people don’t want and that’s when the cost arguement comes into play. As admitted by the lobbiest people don’t want gmos so the industry doesn’t want to have to label them. I’d recommend watching the televised congressional hearings.

jgtrosh 8y ago
European labelling must have E numbers[1] for many chemical products, and no one tries to paint these as anything other than an effort to standardize labeling, so as to help consumer decisions. However, consumers started seeing attacks to products containing this or that harmful E-something, and immediately learned “E means it's bad”. I have had debates with colleagues wherein E300 was used to show a product was potentially harmful, where that is just ascorbic acid (vitamin C). It is true the immediate widespread understanding of “GM product” would be “evil product”. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%20Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%20Number
daveFNbuck 8y ago
The only reason that people want GMO-containing products labeled is that people believe these products to be harmful. Mandatory labeling looks like an official endorsement of that view. This will misinform consumers. > Sure it costs money to add labels...so what? If you don’t want to dish out the added costs don’t use gmos. There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. More expensive food would hurt consumers whether or not they care about GMOs. This is a bad thing. > As admitted by the lobbiest people don’t want gmos so the industry doesn’t want to have to label them. I’d recommend watching the televised congressional hearings. Consider for a moment that I'm right and that GMO labeling would be bad for both consumers and producers. How would industry lobbyists act differently than they do now? Would it be any different from how they act now?
- will_brown 8y ago
  >The only reason that people want gmo products labeled... That is false. Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos. There are studies on the amounts of pesticides and weed killers on the foods you buy. >There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos. If they want to keep using gmos they can. And people who don’t care can keep buying the cheaper gmo food. But anyway you sound like the cigarette industry...labels would hurt business and consumers, yeah that’s right from their playbook. Nutrition labels and ingredients hurt consumers right from big ag’s Playbook. I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind. Edit: can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers? Cigarette warnings? Peanut allergy labels? Medication warning labels? Nutritional labels? Ingredient lists?
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    > Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos. So why aren't they asking for pesticide and weed killer labeling? This is not specific to GMOs and is not something that will apply universally to GMOs going forward. > That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos. I didn't move the goal posts. You conceded the point that labeling increases the price of GMOs. I was responding to your argument that you can save that extra cost by not using GMOs by pointing out that this is even more expensive. GMO labeling will increase the price of food. > I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind. How did you get that? It's not true. I believe that many mandates are helpful. I'm in favor of current mandated nutrition labels on food. > can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers? Labels that are misleading are bad for consumers. Homeopathic medicine has labels that indicate it has ingredients that don't exist in the pills and labels that indicate effectiveness for conditions it has not been demonstrated to treat. This hurts consumers. Food often has misleading non-mandated labels like saying an unhealthy snack is fat free to imply that it is healthy. California's Prop 65 mandates labeling any thing or place that contain a known carcinogen. This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings about carcinogens. Some states have mandated labels on biology textbooks stating that evolution is just a theory. This is a misleading statement designed to trick people into believing falsehoods. Again, I'm not against all labeling. I'm just against labeling that misleads consumers. We need GMOs to make food cheaper and more nutritious and increase yields. GMO labeling is just a scare tactic to get people to buy more expensive products, and it comes at the expense of disadvantaged people and the environment.

jgtrosh 8y ago

European labelling must have E numbers[1] for many chemical products, and no one tries to paint these as anything other than an effort to standardize labeling, so as to help consumer decisions. However, consumers started seeing attacks to products containing this or that harmful E-something, and immediately learned “E means it's bad”. I have had debates with colleagues wherein E300 was used to show a product was potentially harmful, where that is just ascorbic acid (vitamin C). It is true the immediate widespread understanding of “GM product” would be “evil product”. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%20Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%20Number

daveFNbuck 8y ago

The only reason that people want GMO-containing products labeled is that people believe these products to be harmful. Mandatory labeling looks like an official endorsement of that view. This will misinform consumers. > Sure it costs money to add labels...so what? If you don’t want to dish out the added costs don’t use gmos. There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. More expensive food would hurt consumers whether or not they care about GMOs. This is a bad thing. > As admitted by the lobbiest people don’t want gmos so the industry doesn’t want to have to label them. I’d recommend watching the televised congressional hearings. Consider for a moment that I'm right and that GMO labeling would be bad for both consumers and producers. How would industry lobbyists act differently than they do now? Would it be any different from how they act now?

will_brown 8y ago
>The only reason that people want gmo products labeled... That is false. Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos. There are studies on the amounts of pesticides and weed killers on the foods you buy. >There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos. If they want to keep using gmos they can. And people who don’t care can keep buying the cheaper gmo food. But anyway you sound like the cigarette industry...labels would hurt business and consumers, yeah that’s right from their playbook. Nutrition labels and ingredients hurt consumers right from big ag’s Playbook. I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind. Edit: can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers? Cigarette warnings? Peanut allergy labels? Medication warning labels? Nutritional labels? Ingredient lists?
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  > Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos. So why aren't they asking for pesticide and weed killer labeling? This is not specific to GMOs and is not something that will apply universally to GMOs going forward. > That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos. I didn't move the goal posts. You conceded the point that labeling increases the price of GMOs. I was responding to your argument that you can save that extra cost by not using GMOs by pointing out that this is even more expensive. GMO labeling will increase the price of food. > I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind. How did you get that? It's not true. I believe that many mandates are helpful. I'm in favor of current mandated nutrition labels on food. > can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers? Labels that are misleading are bad for consumers. Homeopathic medicine has labels that indicate it has ingredients that don't exist in the pills and labels that indicate effectiveness for conditions it has not been demonstrated to treat. This hurts consumers. Food often has misleading non-mandated labels like saying an unhealthy snack is fat free to imply that it is healthy. California's Prop 65 mandates labeling any thing or place that contain a known carcinogen. This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings about carcinogens. Some states have mandated labels on biology textbooks stating that evolution is just a theory. This is a misleading statement designed to trick people into believing falsehoods. Again, I'm not against all labeling. I'm just against labeling that misleads consumers. We need GMOs to make food cheaper and more nutritious and increase yields. GMO labeling is just a scare tactic to get people to buy more expensive products, and it comes at the expense of disadvantaged people and the environment.