Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Government Businesses News Science Politics

Tiny Vermont Brings Food Industry To Its Knees On GMO Labels (ap.org) 740

schwit1 writes: General Mills' announcement on Friday that it will start labeling products that contain genetically modified ingredients to comply with a Vermont law shows food companies might be throwing in the towel, even as they hold out hope Congress will find a national solution. Tiny Vermont is the first state to require such labeling, effective July 1. Its fellow New England states of Maine and Connecticut have passed laws that require such labeling if other nearby states put one into effect. The U.S. Senate voted 48-49 Wednesday against a bill that would have blocked such state laws. The food industry is holding out hope that Congress will prevent states from requiring such labeling. Some companies say they plan to follow Vermont's law, while others are considering pulling their products from the small state.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tiny Vermont Brings Food Industry To Its Knees On GMO Labels

Comments Filter:
  • Why conceal it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20, 2016 @01:32AM (#51735323)

    If they're happy with it, if it has advantages they can sell the consumers, then they should sell it to consumers on its advantages.

    Why would you try to conceal GMO products from the consumer? It's confirmation that the makers of GMO products have something to hide!

    • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MadCat221 ( 572505 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @01:40AM (#51735337)
      For the same reason that people find it a bad idea to self-identify as "liberal" or "socialist". Reactionary types have poisoned the word in the popular vernacular.
      • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @09:52AM (#51736703) Homepage Journal

        I vote that any foods that are radioactive, even if just a little bit, be required to be labeled as radioactive and have a measure of how much radioactivity per serving. This seems to me more important than labeling GMO foods, but then maybe you don't mind eating radioactive food.

    • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @01:43AM (#51735341)

      They aren't concealing anything. Food manufacturers already make it a point to label it non-GMO if it isn't, because they know that people who follow the food religion will prefer it, even if it means paying more. The same applies to kosher and halal labels.

      Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize. It is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero sieverts, but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.

      This is the same plan as those wanting GMO labeling, not to mention that fighting GMO food is dumb and even counterproductive from an environmental perspective.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sirsnork ( 530512 )

        Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?

        Everyone putting food on the shelf in that state will be required to do this as far as I understand, so _everyone_ is in the same boat.

        This gives consumers the choice. If they want to buy more expensive non GMO options they will be able to make that decision.

        The fear the companies have is that there will be non GMO products available at the same price they have been selling theirs at, and everyone will buy that instead.

        If everyone is using the same base GMO ingredien

        • Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?

          Seriously? /facepalm

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Informative)

          by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @02:55AM (#51735545)

          Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?

          I can't imagine why. [geneticlit...roject.org] Where have you been for the past two decades? Have you really missed the controversy, fearmongering, lies, and generally unscientific bollocks that lead up to this? This push for labeling is not coming from plant & agricultural scientists, and for good reason. It is coming from people who already stigmatize GE crops and wish to do so further.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by execthis ( 537150 )

            Your argument boils down to: People don't think/believe/do what you want, therefore they should be denied their right to know.

            I think it is you who is sick.

            Too bad you can't handle freedom.

          • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:19AM (#51735775)

            I agree actually that the anti-GMO arguments are pretty stupid. But people have the right to eat what they want to eat, be it non-GMO, organic, fair trade, kosher, vegan, ovo/lacto vegetarian, gluten free, paleo, soylent, or whatever the next diet fad that comes down the pipeline will be. And it's a dick move to try to talk, trick, or coerce people into eating something they don't want to eat. Yeah, some of proselytism by people about their diets can be obnoxious. But that's no reason to withhold information about their food in order to trick them into breaking said diet. And if you think the GMO-free ones are the worst, I suspect you've not encountered many vegans or paleos.

            • I don't disagree; what I'm saying is that they have no right to legally mandate their personal dietary preferences. Notice how things like non-Kosher and Haram labels are not required by law. If, say, a Muslim demanded that non-Halal products had a Haram label on them because they were too lazy to learn about their own belief system, would you feel any sympathy for that person's 'right to know?' I certainty wouldn't knowingly do something like give such a person teriyaki chicken cooked with mirin and not

              • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @10:52AM (#51736913)

                I don't disagree; what I'm saying is that they have no right to legally mandate their personal dietary preferences.

                If you were talking about an individual, sure I agree. But luckily we live in something still resembling a representative democracy, where individuals get to make all those arguments to their representatives, and those representatives get to vote on such things.

                I don't see how asking a company to provide some information about ingredients is some sort of violation of any "fundamental right."

                Notice how things like non-Kosher and Haram labels are not required by law. If, say, a Muslim demanded that non-Halal products had a Haram label on them because they were too lazy to learn about their own belief system, would you feel any sympathy for that person's 'right to know?'

                If a single Muslim demanded that our food labeling system be changed, I probably wouldn't pay much attention. If a significant segment of the population cared and convinced a state legislature that such labeling would be helpful to many people, though, I wouldn't have a problem with such labeling on consumer goods.

                This isn't about a "right to know." It's a question about whether states have ability to pass minor regulatory laws. They pass them all them, requiring all sorts of random crap. Yes, some of those regulations are probably unnecessary or even an abuse of power. I sincerely doubt that GMO labeling laws would come close to even the top 1000 of most egregious acts that state governments have mandated through regulation in the past year.

                Yet for some reason this particular one causes everyone to get up in arms.

                I certainty wouldn't knowingly do something like give such a person teriyaki chicken cooked with mirin and not tell them the food was cooked with alcohol, but still, they don't get to dictate regulations and mandate labels for something they could easily look up.

                Again, you're talking about individuals. TFA is talking about the actions and decisions of a representative governmental body. Last time I checked, local and state governments can pass pretty much whatever laws they want to regulating whatever, as long as they don't violate any fundamental rights and aren't fundamentally abusive, arbitrary, or discriminatory. If you don't like such policies, lobby your representative or move to another state.

          • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:30AM (#51735799) Homepage

            Where have you been for the past two decades? Have you really missed the controversy, fearmongering, lies, and generally unscientific bollocks that lead up to this?

            Except that intelligent people also accuse the food industry of these things.

            This push for labeling is not coming from plant & agricultural scientists, and for good reason.

            Yeah, the good reason is that scientists are not politicians or legislators. Lots of people who are scientists support food labeling, of whatever things people want to know about the product. Why do you just assert that scientists are anti-information, anti-choice? That is insane.

            • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @10:24AM (#51736801)

              Lots of people who are scientists support food labeling, of whatever things people want to know about the product.

              I happen to be one of the scientists you are referring to. I work in plant science, where my opinion on this is not uncommon. I'm not against information, far from it, I want more people to know about what it is we really do in my field. What I am against is selective reporting of information, leaving out critical details, to make a falsehood appear true. There is a big difference between that and actual education. Why do you accuse me of being anti-information and anti-choice for demanding labeled be complete, honest, and accurate information while saying exactly what a GMO is? [slashdot.org]

      • Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize. It is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero sieverts, but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.

        Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label. People are stupid, but tough - that's just the way the market is.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label. People are stupid, but tough - that's just the way the market is.

          The label isn't less accurate if it's omitted. Whether or not it's GMO is completely immaterial to the product. Another analogy is requiring mention of whether or not somebody died in a house prior to you selling it. Mentioning that fact will probably reduce its value, however if they never find out then there's no harm at all, and even if they do, there's still no harm, other than maybe it bothers the buyer's religious view, but nonetheless all 50 states in the US have laws preventing civil suits against p

          • The label isn't less accurate if it's omitted. Whether or not it's GMO is completely immaterial to the product.

            Wrong. There are at minimum economic ramifications to purchasing GMOs that I would like to avoid. In addition, I note that none of the chucklefucks claiming that breeding and GMO are the same thing actually have any credentials in this area. They're all armchair dickheads. GMO lets us achieve goals we can't achieve with selective breeding, and therefore it is substantively different. Claiming that it's the same as selective breeding is at best a lie, or potentially just being a colossal idiot.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label.

          How do you think it would affect sales if organic products had to 'accurately' say that they were grown in 400-700 nm radiation?

          • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:46AM (#51735839) Homepage

            If all products grown in light had to be labeled that they were grown in "radiation" then why would you even be talking about organics? That would still be a different part of the label.

            If there is demand for products grown only with light in the 400-500nm range, then it would make sense to add it to the standardized labels. Presumably nobody cares.

            Nobody is asking you or anybody to agree if you should care about that part of the label. The purpose is because people want the information, not because it is believed to be "different." In the same way that one brand might command a different price than another that you consider the same. Maybe one has a nicer logo. That is a difference in the product. Just like having the country of origin. Maybe you don't believe there is any difference in a product if it came from one side of a political line, or the other. But people want the information, so it is on the label.

            Saying we shouldn't be allowed to have the information because we might make illogical purchasing decisions is like trying to ban logos because people might irrationally prefer one logo to the other.

        • Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label.

          It certainly doesn't advertise confidence in the product safety when they make clear that they'd rather not even sell it than tell you what it is.

          People who read labels already know that there are a lot of products with strange ingredients.

      • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by imidan ( 559239 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @02:48AM (#51735519)

        I'm conflicted over this. I agree that the label is intended to stigmatize. But I can't quite see that we shouldn't have them. The people who want the label to be there want it because it's scary sounding and they hope it will dissuade people from buying food that contains GMOs. And those people want to undermine the GMO food industry for a lot of stupid, superstitious, bullshit reasons.

        But I do have objections to GMO food. My objections revolve mainly around two things: intellectual property rights and monocultures. I don't think it's a good strategy for our species for corporations to "own" and "license" the right to plant certain seeds. Also, agricultural monocultures can open us up to harm when some plant pest, pathogen, or disease latches on to the monoculture and potentially causes crop failure because our crops are all genetically identical. (The latter problem is possible without GMOs, but is enhanced by GMOs.)

        The labels are factual, but when people are dissuaded from buying GMO foods because of the label, they're just buying in to a superstition that GMOs are bad. The people advocating for labels are doing it for the wrong reasons, but I do think we need to put some real thought into how we incorporate GMO foods into our food supply. I'd just rather we did it for the right reasons, because the way we're going now, we're having the wrong conversations about the dangers of GMOs.

        • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Ambassador Kosh ( 18352 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @05:01AM (#51735869)

          Do you want research and development to be done on seeds that have been engineered to get all or part of their nitrogen from the air? It is a major area of research to make nitrogen fixing plants and it would HEAVILY cut the usage of fertilizers and that would have a HUGE environmental benefit.

          If it takes decades to get it to work right and billions of dollars but you can't license the technology you realize we won't get that tech right?

          Would it be better for us as a species if the seed company was able to make and license those seeds and tell them at a price where the farmer pays more for the seed that a regular seed but less for fertilizer so in the end the farmer pays less than they do now? The environment is helped and the farmer is better off than before and the research gets done.

          There is lots of effort in trying to make the food healthier and better for the environment. All of that would go away if you can't own and license the seeds for at least a limited time. The problem is that this effort takes many billions of dollars and large teams of scientists to do the work. Government is not funding this research on anything other than a trivial scale. If you ever want to see this actually get used then allowing a corp to temporarily own their work and charge for it is the only way.

          Monocultures are a huge problem but they are not a GMO problem. Organic and GMO are both grown as monocultures.

    • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @02:10AM (#51735417)

      Because facts without context are deceptive. Evolution is 'just' a theory, agree with me? So why not label that on textbooks? Hey, it's a fact, you don't want to hide facts do you? The thing is, your average person has no idea what genetic engineering really is or what it means. Giving people one small detail, without telling the complete story, without explaining the details, knowing full well that years of misinformation are going to result in them thinking something that is not so, is not informative. It is a lie of omission, plain and simple. These laws are forcing lies because no one stopped to ask people who actually know the science behind the crops what they thing.

      And don't try to tell me that it is being hidden; that's another intellectually lazy excuse. A quick Google search tells you what is and is not GE, and how. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, papaya, summer squash, sugar beet, alfalfa, and soon apple and potato, with traits like insect resistance (Cry and Vip genes), herbicide tolerance (C4 EPSPS and bar genes), virus resistance (PRSV-CP and WMV-CP genes), drought tolerance (CspB), and soon consumer oriented traits. Yeah, it isn't on the label, but neither is any of the other things we do to crops that you don't know about. I've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing. I could go on but you get the point. Every plant in the grocery store has a story. Genetic engineering is just one part of that.

      Now, what you are asking is why food producers don't want to single out one part of a much larger story, one that has been stigmatized by years of scientifically baseless fearmongering, knowing that your average person is completely ignorant of the history and present science of crops and agriculture, and slap a label on that doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful (genetically modified how and why? Label doesn't say). Be real here, they have a very good reason for it. This push for labeling is just the GMO denialists' response to being completely wrong about the safety and benefits of genetic engineering. They lost on the facts, now they're trying to make it look like genetic engineering needs labels, because if they're so safe why hide it? Of course, these same people then point to Europe and say 'if they're so safe why do they need labels?'

      I'll believe this is about honesty and transparency whenever the anti-GMO crowd demands that non-GMO corn be labeled as having higher mycotoxin levels. [nih.gov] I'm not holding my breath for that though.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dougmc ( 70836 )

      This cartoon [imgur.com] tells why we shouldn't mandate labeling of them.

      *No* dangers have been found. None. And these foods (well, the GMO plants that went into them) are among the most heavily tested on the planet.

      Even the nutritional characteristics are the same -- and if they weren't, the FDA would require labeling, because then it would actually be different.

      This labeling makes even *less* sense than the Prop 65 warnings in California -- at least there, the chemicals in question really have been found to cause c

      • Re:Why conceal it? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cowdung ( 702933 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:17AM (#51735769)

        I don't believe the dangers of GMOs are from a health standpoint.

        The main danger of GMOs is the social effect on small farmers being forced out of the business by companies like Monsanto. This is a real problem that affects farmers in many many countries where IP law is being used to bully the small guy into paying the big multi-national or go out of business.

        But again its not so much the technologies, but the legal framework around it that is causing this problem.

        • You do realize that Monsanto is not a farming company, yes? They're an ag supply company. They want small farmers to go out of business the same way restaurant supply companies want restaurants to go out of business. What gain would Monsanto have from having less customers?

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Why bully people for not mentioning something irrelevant?

    • Why would you try to conceal GMO products from the consumer? It's confirmation that the makers of GMO products have something to hide!

      I'll bite. Because consumers are in general stupid masses that instantly fear what they don't understand and then will research using some form of confirmation bias to suddenly stop buying a product because it contains something that regulatory bodies have classed as "safe".

      You need look no further than anti-vaxxers to see that writing complicated things on packaging does not help keep people "informed". Likewise I imagine that the sale of water will suddenly plummet if producers are forced to list every ch

    • Yup, and as a long-time Vermonter I can say that Vermont is not generally a place that is run with idiocy and hype. Its a place where money has little part in politics and people get what they want. Like one of the most livable places on Earth, and one that is leading the way into the future environmentally, socially, etc. It has a fair number of issues too, but here we have a very classic example of how government FOR THE PEOPLE works, vs how government FOR THE BANKS works. Well, heck, even the US Senate i

  • while a free market economy is much better at allocating scarce resources than any other method(especially government controlled or regulated economy), for a truly free market to work , there should be full information and perfect competition, impossible conditions.

    it doesn't help that in real world people who are most vocal for free capitalism tend to be the same who are against full information disclosure. i am willing to bet that those who voted against this labeling were such 'supporters' of 'free market capitalism'.

    • by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @01:56AM (#51735365)

      It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.

      No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)

      • It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.

        I believe produce has to be labelled with its country of origin, in the US at least.

        Although if you're talking about food grown in the US... then you should probably just assume it's all picked by Mexican immigrants.

        • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

          It's probably fairly safe to say that food picked by Mexican immigrants was not grown in Mexico.

    • There are costs associated with deciding which information should be fully available and then providing it. Would you like to know the person's name that picked your food, processed, drove it to the store, and then put it on the shelf? Perhaps each item should be fully labeled, and all steps of production attributed to the individuals responsible? This may seem extreme, but it helps illustrate a point.

      How about if 72% of the time the corn used in my delicious CHEETOS is genetically modified, 16% is not, and

      • Man, the preview totally screwed up my order list HTML formatting and made me think I needed to add numbers... Thanks slashdot.

    • Do you have any actual evidence, or you're just saying people that you don't like are people that you don't like? I'm aware that the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club, but come on, offer something better.

      How about a rule that says, "this food was harvested by American citizens", or did we suddenly move past full information and into something that you don't want to disclose? Two can play this game.

    • Incorrect. A free market means buyers and sellers are free to act as they so choose. A regulated free market is one where some things are mandated, such as ingredients and nutrition, however, optional things, such as vegan, Halal, and Kosher labels are voluntary and subject to market demand. Why for example should a papaya have to say that it is genetically engineered, but not if it is orlah? They're both exactly as relevant to the fruit's nutrition.

      Mandating labels without a justification for the publi

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But what does Minuscule Rhode Island have to say about this? When will Petite Delaware speak up?

  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @02:56AM (#51735555) Homepage Journal

    Tiny Vermont?

    If it's small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee.

  • by Cornwallis ( 1188489 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @06:14AM (#51736035)

    As A Vermonter I love to see these stories. VT is increasingly a playground for the rich and those subsumed with WLG* to support the cause du jour.

    Hate fracking? Vermont BANNED it in a very public legislative effort. (Even though Vermont will never have fracking due to geologic conditions in the state.) But of course the Illuminati who run the state strongly support a new, natural gas pipeline that will transport fracked NG to the most "sustainable" of towns.

    Hate litter? We are all becoming professional garbage managers due to legislatively micro-managed trash laws. (Meanwhile, Keurig/Green Mountain Coffee STILL dumps millions of plastic, unrecyclable single-use K-cups into the environment.

    The local "food co-op" broadcasts BUY LOCAL then sells grossly overpriced Yuppie-chow imported from California.

    I can go on but you get the point. Do as I say - not as I do.

    *White Liberal Guilt

  • by wasteoid ( 1897370 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @08:33AM (#51736397)
    If it was old-fashioned breeding techniques, no problem. If scientists used a virus to splice genes to/from an organism, I want to know. That technique has not been proven to be completely accurate or side-effect free.
  • by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @08:33AM (#51736399)

    One of the healthiest vegetable oils, Canola Oil, is a product of genetic modification to remove a potential toxin, making it safe for humans to consume. Most of the characteristics were obtained by "conventional" genetic modification, similar to that used to create, for example, a seedless fruit variety.

    However since Monsanto introduced the Gene-Spliced variety in the late 1990's, ("Roundup Ready Canola") that form has come to dominate the available crops in Canada and the USA. Also, the Monsanto variety has found it's way into the storage lots of the non-licensed seed stock. The result is the GMO Canola is virtually the only form available today in food grade Canola Oil (although it is worth noting that at least 87% is by grower's choice of the Monsanto seed, not seed stock contamination).

    To avoid the GMO variety is to abandon the use of Canola altogether.

    Canola pushes both all the "Heart Smart" buttons, and all the "GMO/non-GMO" buttons.

    Because food manufacturers have largely embraced Canola as an input in processed foods, essentially everything from all the middle aisles in a North American supermarket contains GMO Canola. In other words, almost all the products in the supermarket in Vermont will have to be labeled as containing GMO ingredients.

    The alternative is to use a less healthy vegetable oil, and that might include Hydrogenated varieties containing unhealthy Trans Fats, and earn the right to apply the NON-GMO label.

  • by retroworks ( 652802 ) on Sunday March 20, 2016 @09:02AM (#51736493) Homepage Journal

    Vermont resident here. Best argument I heard against the labelling requirement was that it's TMI. Similar to the arguments about packaging being "recycled content" or "recyclable", or "made in USA", the opponents make the case that every additional disclosure requirement obfuscates ingredient and nutrition information, or dolphin-safe etc. If Vermont required companies put the number of women employed as a percentage of labor, or minority representation on company board of directors, or employee-owned stock, etc. etc., SOMEONE will always be in favor of "disclosing" it on the label. But there's a legitimate concern that the net effect is "noise". Consumers engage in a form of "moral licensing", giving more weight to "recyclable" than "carbs". T

    here is a social cost to obfuscation and "Too Much Information" on labels.

    Many in Vermont have a legitimate purpose in branding the state as more natural and organic because it's basically impossible to operate factory farming here. But while legitimate, it's also legitimate to argue Vermont's concerns are basically protectionism against milk and cheese made more cheaply in Ohio. My concerns over GMO has to do with monoculture and unintended consequences of reduced genetic diversity, and eventual loss of rights to plant your own seeds. And I feel strongly about it. But trying to make other people who are less educated, who think GMO is a health concern, share my agenda is a "poster child" technique which will produce fewer returns the more information is packed onto a label. If we put every "true" thing on a label, people will be deluged and stop reading labels. And THAT is the tactic I hope food labels don't embrace - EULA Agreement scale labels that provide so much "information" that the consumers are lost in politics, packaging, nutrition, ingredients, weight, volume, etc.

  • ... except for salt. I guess salt has never been genetically modified compared to (say) 1000 to 5000 years ago, perhaps because it doesn't contain any genes.

    Everything else -- arguably including wild game -- has been modified by humans manipulating its genes, most often by the tried and true method of waiting for "nature" to cause a mutation and then selectively breeding to stabilize it in a domesticated population.

    So General Foods etc should retaliate by simply labelling all food products as having been modified relative to their "natural" state prior to the existence of mankind. Then consumers will get bored looking at the label (and possibly might be educated about the meaning of "GMO" relative to the biological human universe). End of problem.

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.

Working...