As state GMO labeling laws are proposed, critics wonder about logistics and costs

[HuckleB]

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/24/as-state-gmo-labeling-laws-are-proposed-critics-wonder-about-logistics-and-costs/

This is a really fair piece on the matter, and it boggles my mind to see so many at DU fail to see that, by ignoring the science of the matter, they are promoting food insecurity for many people.

I won't post this on a more populated forum because, well, I suspect it would be sent to jury and deleted, and I would be banned, once and for all. Anyway...

If you live in Oregon or Colorado and care about science, well, right now, the voters are about to spit in your face.

[Archae]

1. Reminds me of Kentucky and the creationists.

They get tax breaks because "The majority wants it..."

[HuckleB]

2. The majority loves pizza, too!

I want a tax break on every pizza I buy!!

[Archae]

4. There are far more believers in flying saucers than there are creationists.

Should places like the Roswell "museum" get big tax breaks?

[NYC_SKP]

3. Funny how they want to filter or restrict information for our own good.

Heavens to Betsy, if we knew the fat content of baby food we might....

Better to just keep us ignorant?

[HuckleB]

5. What are you talking about?

[NYC_SKP]

6. That's from the article in your OP. Concerns about people not buying products out of fear.

They specifically used baby food and fat content as an example in which a parent might overreact and not buy something the infant needs for lack of understanding that kids need fat while developing.

In Connecticut, Beau Kjerulf Greer, professor of nutrition at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield pointed out:

A “right to know” argument is a common tenet of pro-GMO labeling arguments, but it is often in the interest of public health that people are protected from their own acquired misinformation. Fat grams are not listed on baby foods because parents may restrict their infant’s fat intake for perceived health effects, not understanding the necessity of high amounts of fat in the infant diet. And if the rationale for labeling is transparency for transparency’s sake, why not direct our limited resources to labeling arsenic levels in rice, mercury levels in fish or other contamination that actually has documented potential for harm? And do we really want to increase food costs for the poor via labeling because the upper middle class currently enjoys playing the role of armchair nutritionist?

[HuckleB]

7. In other words, you don't think public health measures matter?

Especially in an age when NGOs are spreading misinformation about food at a nauseating rate. Hmm.

[NYC_SKP]

8. wtf w hmm? I believe in full disclosure of contents, sources, mfg techniques, GMOs, etc.

I think the FDA should require full disclosure and truthful labeling.

So, yeah, I think public health measures matter and I think people and organizations that think they're doing a public service by fighting disclosure "for our own good" are full of shit.

I am not fighting you, I'm just stating my position.

[HuckleB]

9. So you think GMO labeling is logical?

How is that?

And what if babies end up in the hospital because of a mandatory label? (Granted, combined with NGO stupidity?)

Life ain't black and white. And that means what's right is often gray.

BTW, you do realize that the GMO labeling nonsense is all about organic companies using the government to help them foment the fear they've been working on so that their profits continue to increase, right?

You really think that's ok?

[NYC_SKP]

10. Yes, knowledge is power. Sorry that our organic companies are using the government this way.

Damn government!

[HuckleB]

11. GMO labeling gives you zero knowledge.

It's about organic companies using the government to increase profits.

That's despicable. Especially because it will increase food prices, especially for those who can least afford it.