Labelling GMO foods

[LetThereBe]

And why are we being concerned with "if there is no objective or scientifically supported concern"?
Do you have a concern about the methods used to study crop contamination?

I think it is irrelevant to the consumer given what "contaminate" means in the sense they give it. Yes, these plants give off pollen (like other plants).
Regardless, you ignore the first actual question.
Do you agree if there is no scientific compelling concern, it is nonsense to mandate labeling?

Why is human health the only issue?

I'm open to other suggestions, but they would have to be relevant to the needs of the consumer. Human health is certainly the most compelling.

[SoylentGreen]

I think it is irrelevant to the consumer given what "contaminate" means in the sense they give it.

Why because GM companies have no answer for the problem? And in this instant it is the person not wanting to be a consumer of GM being denied that right.

Yes, these plants give off pollen (like other plants).

And seeds get planted out of controlled areas. It's called contamination, and users of organic food are being denied their right to grow such food.

Regardless, you ignore the first actual question.
Do you agree if there is no scientific compelling concern, it is nonsense to mandate labeling?

As I tend to disregard most irrelevant questions. Of what concern do we have with things that there is of no scientific compelling concern ?

I'm open to other suggestions, but they would have to be relevant to the needs of the consumer. Human health is certainly the most compelling.

How about the right to choose which kind of product you would like to buy. GM takes that right away from you.

[barts]

I think there are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Does it make sense to mandate labeling something if there is no objective or scientifically supported concern?

2. Is there any objective or scientifically supported concern for GMO on human health?

There is a third reason. Consumers--independent of government and industry--want information about the food they are being sold. Your two "questions" presume that consumers will simply be told what they will get and that they have no say in the decision.

Of course, the answer to your second question is "Yes."

[Angry Citizen]

If consumers wanted to be told about GMO products, then there would be a widespread movement for it. There isnt.

[barts]

If consumers wanted to be told about GMO products, then there would be a widespread movement for it. There isnt.

There is a large movement for it. There is a ban in the EU on GMO foods because of consumers, and you could visit LabelGMOs.org.

I'm curious why you'd say something that was simply false. Or is there some threshold of consumer demand, determined personally by you and others who defend the misuse of GMO technology, that must be met before labeling is required?

Also, your appeal to "widespread movement" is amusing, even laughable. When was there ever a widespread movement, in your view, about labeling anything? The majority of consumers don't demand anything. If it was left to widespread consumer demand, we'd still be driving cars that killed us in even the slightest collision, and we'd still have lead in gasoline poisoning people.

At any rate, your quibble is not a valid argument against labeling. It's not a reason to deny the information to those who want it. It's a reason given by those who want consumers to remain ignorant.

[LetThereBe]

Why because GM companies have no answer for the problem? And in this instant it is the person not wanting to be a consumer of GM being denied that right.

The same is true of farmers growing different organic cultivars of the same crop: if in proximity they will "contaminate" one another. They are plants. Spreading pollen is what they do.
Labeling also would not help fix this "problem" at all. Perhaps government zoning of farmland would be an answer (though I again do not feel this is justified).

And seeds get planted out of controlled areas. It's called contamination, and users of organic food are being denied their right to grow such food.

As I said, same with other cultivars of the same species. Just because it is "contamination" does not mean it is in any way harmful, and even if it were it isn't something labeling would fix.

As I tend to disregard most irrelevant questions. Of what concern do we have with things that there is of no scientific compelling concern ?

If you feel things of no scientific compelling concern are of no concern, then you have answered my question: mandating labeling in such a case is silly.
Keep in mind I wasn't only posting to you. Barts seems to be of the opinion that mandating labeling whether something floats or any other absurd fact makes sense if some consumers want it.

How about the right to choose which kind of product you would like to buy. GM takes that right away from you.

No more than any other cultivar. Maybe you want to buy a steak made from a cow that has never breathed man-made green-house gases? Pretty much all human enterprise "takes that right away from you".
If you have absurd, irrelevant demands like that then grow it yourself. Sorry that some pollen has touched your plant. That is what happens when something is outside.

[LetThereBe]

There is a third reason. Consumers--independent of government and industry--want information about the food they are being sold. Your two "questions" presume that consumers will simply be told what they will get and that they have no say in the decision.

Of course, the answer to your second question is "Yes."

Most consumers don't care whether something is GMO. They care if something is harmful to their health or their families health.
Labeling something that "maybe might be harmful but we can't prove it" is a scare tactic. It is a political move to make people think negatively about something when there is no reason to.
We could mandate that all crops that were also grown in Nazi Germany carry a label. We could stick a little Swasticka on every one.
The negativity doesn't come from the shared history of the plant, the negativity comes from the association with Nazi-ism. It is nothing but political BS.

When you show compelling scientific evidence that GMO products are harmful to human health, then I will agree in mandatory labeling.

[barts]

Most consumers don't care whether something is GMO. They care if something is harmful to their health or their families health.
Labeling something that "maybe might be harmful but we can't prove it" is a scare tactic.

There are a significant number of consumers who want to know if the food they are buying contains GMOs. That is a reasonable request. The notion that GMOs are safe is under debate at the scientific level--something you and others seem unable to acknowledge. We know for a fact that GMOs are causing unintended consequences in the environment. The claims that GMOs are safe and environmentally benign are based more on the orchestrated lack of information rather than good science. They're based on the fallacious notion that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And, the stupid idea that what we don't know can't harm us.

It's for those reasons that labeling foods gives people the information they need to make an informed choice, if they choose to do so.

Lastly, it's not for you, industry, or the government--in a democratic society--to choose for others what they want to protest or change in their society. It's not for you, or industry, or government to selectively decide what information others have access to in order serve your interests and biases.

The only arguments against labeling come from the champions of GMOs who know that their assurances about GMOs' human health and environmental safety do not stand scrutiny. A responsible industry and government would operate in a spirit of transparency and full disclosure. Opposition against labeling is the antithesis of those values.

[Muckraker]

This is how we wind up with a suffocation warning printed in five languages on every scrap of plastic baggie we come across.

Genetically modified food is already labeled. Does a tomato the size of your head selling for $.25/lb sitting next to a shriveled, tennis-ball-sized, phlegm-colored tomato selling for $2.50/lb really need a paper label to let us know human tinkering was involved?

Soon enough it will probably be adequate to assume that every single food item not labeled as organic has been genetically modified in some way. Heck, there will probably be a point in the future when every organism has been indirectly genetically modified. How many times will the homely old-fashioned corn watch the slick Monsanto city-corn drive by in its Corvette before succumbing to its advances and birthing us some half-breed corn?

[barts]

This is how we wind up with a suffocation warning printed in five languages on every scrap of plastic baggie we come across.

Is that so onerous? I know you're exaggerating for effect, but do such labels and warnings in some way adversely affect your life, such that it would be demonstrably improved if the warnings did not exist?

[LetThereBe]

There are a significant number of consumers who want to know if the food they are buying contains GMOs. That is a reasonable request.

A "reasonable request" is one thing, a government mandate is another. If companies wish to voluntarily disclose whatever information some irrational subset of consumers are interested in, by all means they may.

The notion that GMOs are safe is under debate at the scientific level--something you and others seem unable to acknowledge. We know for a fact that GMOs are causing unintended consequences in the environment. The claims that GMOs are safe and environmentally benign are based more on the orchestrated lack of information rather than good science. They're based on the fallacious notion that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And, the stupid idea that what we don't know can't harm us.

You make it sound like some grand conspiracy. Orchestrated lack of information?
The products themselves are publicly available! Go buy some! Test it on some animals yourself, feed one group only organic and one group GMO foods, see how their health compares.
Who is in on this conspiracy that is preventing people from determining the health detriments of publicly available goods?

I am not saying we assume something is safe, I'm just also saying that we don't assume it is harmful. There is a point where irrational paranoia is simply not justified, however.

Lastly, it's not for you, industry, or the government--in a democratic society--to choose for others what they want to protest or change in their society. It's not for you, or industry, or government to selectively decide what information others have access to in order serve your interests and biases.

Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. In this case it isn't even the majority... it is a loud, politically motivated subset that themselves rely on buzzwords and ignorance.
I'm all for voluntary labeling. Feel free to never buy a product that doesn't disclose everything. You call this a democratic society, but we also strive to be a FREE society, where ever single aspect of our lives isn't government mandated due to the fears of the few.
What else do we want to label? I bet we can find people that care about where a product was made. Let's make companies list the country of origin of every ingredient/component of a product. I bet we can find people that care about the criminal history of the employees. Let's require companies to post that information on their packaging. Let's require a live feed of the company restrooms online to ensure everyone washes their hands. Let's require political/religious affiliation of investors and contractors. Let's require photographs, from start to finish, of your individual item being grown/produced. No harm in documentation right? The only argument against this is being pro-ignorance, right?

Is that so onerous? I know you're exaggerating for effect, but do such labels and warnings in some way adversely affect your life, such that it would be demonstrably improved if the warnings did not exist?

Well, besides the disgusting aesthetics when every product and surface is coated with inane warnings, yes, there is such a thing as "warning fatigue".
When you put hundreds of unnecessary and superfluous warnings the ones that are actually important get lost and are less likely to be noticed.

[barts]

What else do we want to label? I bet we can find people that care about where a product was made. Let's make companies list the country of origin of every ingredient/component of a product.

There is country of origin labeling, because some consumers do want to know where food comes from and make their choices accordingly.