Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food 334
gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times:
"For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory. Regulators and many scientists say these pose no danger. But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating, popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated. The most closely watched labeling effort is a proposed ballot initiative in California that cleared a crucial hurdle this month, setting the stage for a probable November vote that could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture. Tens of millions of dollars are expected to be spent on the election showdown. It pits consumer groups and the organic food industry, both of which support mandatory labeling, against more conventional farmers, agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto and many of the nation's best-known food brands like Kellogg's and Kraft."
Monsanto? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess we all know how this will go down, considering what happened in France [farmersguardian.com]. The FDA will step in and overrule any vote
but all food is now GM (Score:5, Insightful)
While I applaud the notion, this all overlooks the fact that pollen from Monsanto's GM crops is wind- and insect-borne to even organic farms.
And what about scientists who say it is harmful [phys.org]?
Re:but all food is now GM (Score:5, Insightful)
Labelled = Banned (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the food industry is concerned, labelling is equivalent to banning genetically modified food.
As far as I am concerned, if they can't sell it for what it is, then they shouldn't be selling it.
Funny excuses they use (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny excuses they use to not label the franken-food as GMOed. "We don't want mandatory labeling because nobody can keep track of the ingredients." If you can't keep track of a dozen ingredients in your food products, how are you keeping track of all those genes and the interactions between them?
If they don't have anything to hide, then why not label it GMO? Hint - because nobody in their right mind would buy it, that's why.
Re:Labelled = Banned (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the food industry is concerned, labelling is equivalent to banning genetically modified food.
As far as I am concerned, if they can't sell it for what it is, then they shouldn't be selling it.
That's not entirely true. Look at High Fructose Corn Syrup. It has been labelled as such (vs. real sugar) for a while, and there are technically alternatives, but all of the big name sodas (and a whole slew of other products) still use it. Even with its richly deserved bad publicity, it is still out there and being sold a lot.
Notme was here. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, they want to patent the food but not admit it. Sounds like organized crime.
I don't care about the harm, it's about choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
If GM food is awesome, then why aren't they proud enough to slap a big 'ol label on it and say so? I mean, I buy "Sugar Free" and "Fat Free" stuff, they're proud of that... "New and Improved" has been the promotional battle cry since marketing began... So, what's so bad about informing the consumers? Consumers should have the choice: Some people might prefer it regardless of any real or perceived benefit or harm. Eg: I buy cage free eggs not because of better living conditions for birds, but because of the taste -- Tastes like Freedom! It's not like all the other eggs say: Unborn Chicken Slaves...
The point is: without a label, how can I exercise consumer choice? Put it another way: If the corn has DNA pesticide enough such that I don't have to fight off Texas sized mosquito swarms anymore, then I might just ONLY eat Deep Woods OFF(tm) brand Gene Boosted food.
Heath effects is a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
... So please stop lending credence to it. The real concern is creating a crop monoculture engineered to meet Monsanto's short term needs (eg to sell roundup-ready seeds every year, then selling the roundup, etc), and not the long-term needs of society or even just farmers.
Re:I don't care about the harm, it's about choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/nongmolabel112205.cfm
Re:Labelled = Banned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is labeled if you know what to look for (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there's a very good market-based reason to go to the government for labelling: the free market works better when consumers have information [wikipedia.org].
Re:but all food is now GM (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to encourage the kind of monopoly that Monsanto represents. Even if Monsanto has salted everyone else's fields, I would still respond to a label that made it clear that the farmer that grew my food retained the right to save his own seeds.
This isn't just about the direct impacts of Monsanto franken-foods on my body or the environment. That's certainly important but it is by no means the end of the issue.