Why we should DEMAND mandatory labels for GM food

[bibliophile birds]

i can't remember where i saw this (maybe Food Inc) but there was this interview with some corporate folks about why GM food shouldn't be labeled. their argument was that it would "unduly frighten people away from a product." ummm..... so? that's the consumer's prerogative. they said they should have a few years to "educate" consumers on the "benefits" before they were required to label the products.

the worst part is that they got that kind of asinine thinking approved.

 

[old fashioned]

asinine is right! Especially since not all consumers know or care or willing or able to change their food habits and would still buy these products even with GM labels. These producers would still make plenty of profit$, just not as complete.

 

[abifae]

*

 

[bibliophile birds]

Reality is NEVER as good as the concept. That's why i don't date.

omg, i think i love you.

 

[freemotion]

Abifae, you don't need vats of algae if you simply use a good model of stasis chamber....I liked the ones in "Life on Mars".......

 

[freemotion]

As far as labelling goes, I'd be happy with a simple "GM" in one corner, and "IR" in the other, and let the people take the time to get educated and read labels if they want to avoid....or seek out....these methods.

 

[big brown horse]

As far as labelling goes, I'd be happy with a simple "GM" in one corner, and "IR" in the other, and let the people take the time to get educated and read labels if they want to avoid....or seek out....these methods.

By IR do you mean Infrared Radiation Heating for Food Processing?

Yeah, a simple GM in one corner is all that I ask.

 

[big brown horse]

Here are some of the "cons" of labeling GM foods that are also listed:

Labeling of GM foods alarms and turns-away consumers. Labeling of GM foods would create an immediate sense among consumers that there is something wrong with GM foods. This is particularly true when considering that most consumers are not too nuanced in their understanding of the nature of GM foods, the debate surrounding them, the alleged risks, and the fact that most of the foods they are consuming are already genetically engineered in some way. It is naive to believe that consumers would feel better and more assured after the labeling of these products, or that they would feel empowered by a new-found choice. Instead, they would be alarmed and the number of labels appearing on the shelves, and would become more anxious about GM foods. This would be unfortunate in many regards, most important of which is the fact that there is no hard evidence that GM foods are any riskier than ordinary crops and food produce.

Labeling is part of efforts to stigmatize GM foods George Misko. "Oppose Mandatory Labeling For Genetically Modified Food Ingredients." Food & Drug Packaging. July, 1999: "Why is [labeling] proposed? Because the proponents wish to stigmatize those products with a label notice that has the effect of a warning. And stigmatize, such a label will. To cite one example: In the United Kingdom, the popular press has, through a campaign of misinformation, created near-hysteria by slanderously referring to food products containing GMO derivatives as 'Frankenstein Foods.'"

Labeling of genetically modified foods is costly. Labeling of genetically modified foods costs money. It is not free. It requires that all companies be regulated, that they ensure that they have or do not have a certain level of GM ingredients in their foods, and that labels be placed on these food products. This would be very expensive. This would harm prices, jobs, salaries, and overall economic health. It would also probably require an increase in taxes to fund new regulatory bodies for GM foods.

Labeling of genetically modified foods increases food prices.
Labeling of genetically modified foods makes it more expensive for many food companies to produce their foods, as it requires that they regulate their food production, check to ensure that they are below the GM food level. This means that the ultimate food product must be priced at a higher level for consumers, to compensate for their added expenses in complying with labeling.

There is not much space on food products for GM labels. Many food products have very limited space on their packaging for extra labels. Mandating GM labeling forces food producers to divert limited space, subjecting them to a disadvantage. And, in general, food labels should be used to convey important safety and health information to consumers, rather than facts that may not be important - such as whether some GM ingredients are in a food product.

Labeling of genetically modified foods segregates the market. Labeling creates a market in which some goods are labeled and others are not. This segregates the market into, presumably, more wholesome and less wholesome products. This is unfair to the GM food industry, as there is no conclusive evidence that their product is inferior in any way, and there is plenty of evidence that their products are actually superior?

Labeling requires separate processing of GM and non-GM foods. "Labelling of GM foods. Pros and Cons of Major Labelling Approaches." Think Quest: "A At present, GM crops/foods and non-GM crops/foods are often mixed together during harvesting, storage or processing. It would be necessary to establish a system to segregate these crops along the food supply chain, especially when the trade would like to source for non-GM food products. Hence additional cost would be incurred to establish and maintain segregation systems."

Mandatory labeling disincentivizes innovation in food technology. George Misko. "Oppose Mandatory Labeling For Genetically Modified Food Ingredients." Food & Drug Packaging. July, 1999: "Without innovation, there would be no polio vaccine, no revolution in electronic information available over the internet, and, yes, no disease-resistant, higher-yielding crops to feed the world's hungry through genetic modification achieved by such traditional means as hybridization. Today, critical advances in biotechnology hold the promise of alleviating hunger and malnutrition, so there can be no compromise when some oppose innovation simply because it is new."

http://wiki.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Mandatory_labeling_of_genetically_modified_foods

 

[big brown horse]

More "cons" from the same site:

Labels wrongly imply that GM foods are unsafe Erica Martenson. "The benefits of labeling genetically-modified foods." Napa Valley Register. January 01, 2008: "Requiring labeling for ingredients that dont pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence."

Labeling is wrong when GM foods show no differences with other foods "Whats the Problem with Labeling Genetically-Modified (GM/GMO) Foods?" Monsanto Statement: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops dont differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them dont have to be labeled. FDA does require the product to be labeled if the ingredient is a potential allergen, or somehow changes the nutritional properties of the food. To date, no approved biotech crop is either an allergen, or has any significant nutritional differences from non-GM counterparts."

Labeling ignores that all foods are genetically modified. Almost all foods have been genetically modified in the sense that they are the result of breeding between plants and species. It is wrong, therefore, to label foods that have been genetically modified with more modern techniques, as the only "genetically modified" foods on the shelf, when, in truth, almost all the foods have been modified in a similar way.

Consumers can avoid GM foods by eating "organic" Organic foods are without GM ingredients. If people want to avoid consuming GM foods, they can easily do so by eating organic foods. They have complete choice.

Arbitrary labeling rules do not offer any real choice. Gregory Conko. "Mandatory Labeling Is A Bad Idea." Objective Science. March 23, 2003: "Although GM food labelling is already mandatory, advocates claim that the stronger new labelling and traceability rules will ensure that consumers have more complete information, enabling them to make informed choices. In truth, the measures will do no such thing. Both the existing and the proposed labelling regulations only require certain categories of GM foods to be labelled, and provide no context for why some are to be labelled and others exempt. So to make truly informed choices, shoppers must rely upon other sources of information."

Difficulty enforcing GM food labels limits actual consumer choices. It is very difficult to test foods to ensure that those that are considered "GM free" are actually "free" of GM materials. This is an obvious practical issue, especially when one considers how high the volume of food products is and how rapidly they are consumed. Ensuring, by testing, that each harvest and item of food appearing on store shelves is at or below a certain level of GM-ingredients is obviously very difficult, and perhaps even impossible. This means that consumers are likely to be consuming GM ingredients even when they are consuming foods with GM-free labels. Thus, the actual choice of consumers to avoid GM foods is actually very limited, even with labels, due to these practical constraints on labels.
Labeling of GM foods has not shown to change consumer behavior. Surveys in Canada, Japan, Norway, the U.S. and the U.K. indicated that consumers want GM foods to be labeled, but an experimental test in North America showed that GM labels did not have a significant impact on consumer purchasing. If the idea is for information on labels to affect consumer behavior, the fact that it does not, raises the question, "what's the point?".

Most don't mind GM foods, but would pay costs of labeling. One of the basic debates surrounding labeling regards the overall cost-benefit analysis to all individuals involved. One strong argument, in this regard, against labeling, is that individuals that there are more individuals that don't mind GM foods, but whom would have to pay the extra food prices associated with labeling, as compared to individuals that mind GM foods and are willing to accept the added costs of labeling.

ETA: http://wiki.idebate.org/en/index.php/De fied_foods

 

[big brown horse]

One last thing to read and think about before you plan your next grocery list: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy

(Roundup Ready seeds are GM seeds)