For the past few years, consumer advocates have been ratcheting up the pressure on states and the federal government to require labeling, arguing that information about GMOs is essential if we're to make informed decisions about what food to buy. Meanwhile, the food industry has resisted the idea of labeling, arguing that GMOs are safe and that labeling costs would be passed onto consumers. Allen Williams grows corn and soybeans for Clarkson Grain, which has been selling GMO-free grain to Japan for years.But recently, they changed their tune a bit. As we in February, a food industry coalition representing farmers, seed companies and other food producers who rely heavily on GMO ingredients said they support voluntary labeling standards. And they asked the Food and Drug Administration to outline what they might look like.
Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the GMO debate when I say I'm pro labeling, since consumers should be allowed to be informed about
( ... )
All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?
And accurate labelling identifying origins, grape variety, vintage, and wine-maker informs a buyer's market in at least one area I'm aware of.
Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?
The difference between your position and mine is just one of timing: I'm anticipating the market in the light of the popular desire to have such information, and allowing those stupid to their own advantage to have a level playing field with the enlightened folk who labelled their food in the light of consumer demand. It's almost like a democracy, but one where money buys influence.
What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.
And so they're just better off not knowing. See? Paternalistic.
I think that if people want to know that a product contains GMOs, they have the right to know. Whether you or I think their reason for wanting to know is silly doesn't change that, imo.
For the past few years, consumer advocates have been ratcheting up the pressure on states and the federal government to require labeling, arguing that information about GMOs is essential if we're to make informed decisions about what food to buy. Meanwhile, the food industry has resisted the idea of labeling, arguing that GMOs are safe and that labeling costs would be passed onto consumers. Allen Williams grows corn and soybeans for Clarkson Grain, which has been selling GMO-free grain to Japan for years.But recently, they changed their tune a bit. As we in February, a food industry coalition representing farmers, seed companies and other food producers who rely heavily on GMO ingredients said they support voluntary labeling standards. And they asked the Food and Drug Administration to outline what they might look like.
Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the GMO debate when I say I'm pro labeling, since consumers should be allowed to be informed about ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
And accurate labelling identifying origins, grape variety, vintage, and wine-maker informs a buyer's market in at least one area I'm aware of.
Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?
The difference between your position and mine is just one of timing: I'm anticipating the market in the light of the popular desire to have such information, and allowing those stupid to their own advantage to have a level playing field with the enlightened folk who labelled their food in the light of consumer demand. It's almost like a democracy, but one where money buys influence.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And so they're just better off not knowing. See? Paternalistic.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment