California Prop 37 is on the ballot for this November. I'm concerned that I'm writing this too late - some of you may have already filled out your early voter / absentee ballots. For the rest of you I think this is bad legislation, and that you should vote no. This is why.
18 years of study : zero cause for concernThe first GMO food product was
(
Read more... )
So are computers to furniture makers. IKEA uses a lot more of them than a Mennonite craftsman in his shed. But I'm not going to mandate that every piece of furniture have mandatory "made with computers" labeled on the side, even if I favor high-quality furniture, because I also support the efficiency, decreased waste, and precision that a good CNC mill can produce.
As a general principle, don't you think it's good for everyone to let consumers in a free market make choices about what to buy based on their political alignment and views?
I do, and I thought I addressed that point. If your candy bar doesn't say "kosher", it's probably not kosher. If it doesn't say "vegan", it's probably not vegan. And if it doesn't say "no GMO", it's probably got some GMO corn syrup in it.
Mandatory warning labels only appear on things that have demonstrable harm, and they don't merely exist as a warning. They carry a social stigma - "Society has deemed that this thing is bad". Lead in paint, PCBs in bottles, cancer from cigarettes. And GMO foods do not deserve that stigma because they are as safe as conventional food while conferring the benefits they were designed for.
GMO is too versatile a technology to paint with such a broad brush. If you find out that Roundup Ready Corn causes cancer (it doesn't), I will happily put a mandatory warning label on it. But I'm not going to put a mandatory "explosion hazard" sticker on every car on the freeway just because the Corvair did it.
Reply
Leave a comment