world

U.S. farmers, food interests unite against GMO labeling

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Stressing the lack of scientific evidence that GMOs cause harm, -------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a lie. There are many independent studies that show GMO food to be harmful to health. You only have to look at the poor health of many Americans to see that something is wrong.

Saw canned Japanese soy beans in the shops with distinct label " Non GMO " I hope everything gets labeled.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If there is any evidence that GMOs might be harmful, then they shouldn't be in the products in the first place, not put in and labelled.

The thing is simple; if you want people to buy what you're selling, then you proudly tell them what you're selling; you don't hide behind 'But it's safe, honest'. If it takes legislation to get you to tell me what you're trying to sell me, then I'm sorry, but I don't trust you and I don't want what you're selling.

Consumers want and need choice. If there's a pig in the poke, then clearly label it 'Pig', so that those who want pig can happily pay premium prices for it and those who want to avoid pig can do so.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Nice analogy, Cleo.

There are non-GMO foods and GMO foods, and the consumer makes the choice of what they want to eat, and whether they believe in the hype by either side of the argument. The 'poor health of many Americans', as VicMOsaka puts it, has nothing to do with GMO foods and everything to do with their consumption of stuff that just isn't good for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gaesser estimated that any new state-by-state labeling laws would hike prices 15 to 30 percent."

This sounds like a very typical scare tactic that has no basis in fact.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@cleo

We don't always agree on many things, but on this issue, I agree 100% at least give the consumer the option of telling them whether their food is GM or not. But yes, if these farmers have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem to label the foods accordingly from where they're grown, if organic, they should be labeled. The same should apply to all foods.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Genetic modifications allow for bigger, faster, more robust harvests whether livestock, grains or produce. ie more profits for farmers and food industry. By not labeling they avoid any threats to consumer demand. They want their cake and eat it too. Label the product!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Makes sense many of their trading partners are against GM foods and will refuse those labeled foods.

Add in the TPP where many countries also refuse to buy GM seeds.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yeah, I trust big business to do what's right.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" Yeah, I trust big business to do what's right."

I like the sarcasm.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

U.S. farmers, food interests unite against GMO labeling

"In related news, JT leftists, rightists unite against U.S. farmers, food interests uniting against GMO labeling."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The consumers have the right to know what is in their foods, including whether it's GMO/GE or not. It could be soylent green.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is absolutely no reason that consumers should not be able to know what they are eating, and any suggestion to the contrary most likely comes, directly or indirectly, from the companies that are locked into GMO foods. People may like and support GMO food. Fine, but we should have a choice if we don't.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well this is one of those areas that finds people on the left believing something despite what the scientific outcome has shown. Sort of the opposite of the climate deniers and creationist but in the same logical mold.

The reality on this subject, to date, is that GMO are one of the most studied areas in genetics and food science and the vast majority of the studies conducted have found very little correlation between GMO and health risk. GMO's are proving to be safer than the activist types are claiming. And with hunger a real problem, with deadly real results, why should we hamstring ourselves in producing foods that humans need?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Here is a link to some actual scientific literature on this subject:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

this is one of those areas that finds people on the left believing something despite what the scientific outcome has shown

Believing that people want/need to know what's in the bag before they buy is limited to 'people on the left'? I don't think so. When I go to buy fruit, I want to know if I'm buying apples or oranges. Wanting apples doesn't mean I think oranges are not safe; it just means I want apples. If I go to buy a red sweater, it isn't helpful if the sweater manufacturer wraps all his merchandise up in such a way that I cannot tell if what I'm holding is red, or a sweater. That doesn't mean that red trousers or blue sweaters are 'unsafe'; it just isn't what I want, and quoting learned scientific research at me confirming the safety of red trousers or blue sweaters isn't very helpful. You're attempting to answer a strawman argument.

with hunger a real problem, with deadly real results, why should we hamstring ourselves in producing foods that humans need?

Hunger is not a 'real problem' either in the US where the states are fighting over whether things should be labelled properly, or in Europe or Japan where people don't want GMO and will avoid it if possible. If GMO is so good, why not emblazon it in big, bold letters on the label, make it a selling point, instead of trying to hide it? Why not try to market it to me as something positive, something I should want to buy, instead of hiding behind flawed labelling legislation? If it can't be marketed as something positive but has to be snuck into products, why would I want to buy it?

What is the benefit to me of buying GMOs? It's certainly not the price, since the people trying to sell them want to mix them in with non-GMOs at the same price. 'It hasn't been shown to be unsafe' is not a compelling argument.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If you're enthused about GMO, please read about just one of the questions about it: Roundup Ready Seeds.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not operate on the assumption that everything you eat has at least some GE plant material in it unless it is labeled non-GMO.

Within a certain demographic, a product labeled non-GMO is definitely preferable and many are willing to pay a higher price for it. At the same time there are a lot of people who don't care if a product is GE or not but would care if mandatory labeling would increase their grocery bill.

So let the people who are willing to pay a higher price for their own peace of mind be the ones to bear the extra cost of labeling. And let the producers who profit from those people's fears; bear the burden of proof if one product is less or more harmful then another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So let the people who are willing to pay a higher price for their own peace of mind be the ones to bear the extra cost of labeling.

There is no extra cost of labeling. The text/mark just needs to be added to the existing label.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mandatory labeling would increase their grocery bill

There is no reason putting 'contains GMO' on the label would increase the price, any more than putting the weight, colour, flavour, place of origin etc., does.

let the producers who profit from those people's fears; bear the burden of proof

As opposed to letting the producers who profit from the increased yield/reduced labour etc etc bear the burden of actually telling people what they're selling?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is no extra cost of labeling. The text/mark just needs to be added to the existing label

There is no reason putting 'contains GMO' on the label would increase the price, any more than putting the weight, colour, flavour, place of origin etc., does.

If individual states had different labeling requirements and the producer sold their products nation wide; it is conceivable that they would have to maintain an inventory of a number of different labels to be in compliance. That adds cost. But I agree, if it was merely a matter of adding "contains GMOs" then no problem. Unfortunately this is being approached at a State, and even a County, level so the proposed requirements are all over the map and the potential for price increases is real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If individual states had different labeling requirements and the producer sold their products nation wide; it is conceivable that they would have to maintain an inventory of a number of different labels to be in compliance. That adds cost....the proposed requirements are all over the map and the potential for price increases is real

Rubbish. Just put all the info the strictest state demands on a single, one-size-fits-all generic label; 'different labelling requirements' doesn't mean you aren't allowed to give more info than the legally required minimum.

If each state had a different label requirement, our farmers just couldn’t adapt to that and really economically grow safe, affordable food

It sounds like he's saying farmers can't adapt to growing the kind of safe, affordable food people want to buy. What stops them simply growing the best quality food they can, labelling it honestly, and selling it? What exactly on the labels is it that they're afraid of?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Rubbish. Just put all the info the strictest state demands on a single, one-size-fits-all generic label; 'different labeling requirements' doesn't mean you aren't allowed to give more info than the legally required minimum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for honest labeling. But I think it should be approached in a manner that has a better chance of success all around. Just think of all the disparate special interests that are pushing their own dogs in this fight. Everybody is going to want their “one-size-fits-all generic label” to be “the” one-size-fits-all generic label; it will go on forever and in the end nobody will be truly satisfied.

Better to establish a certification process by which food growers and producers could apply for GMO free status and earn a Certified GMO Free rating. Come up with a catchy logo and make it an instantly recognizable symbol of food safety and quality. It could be a powerful sales tool for those companies that wanted to tap into the anti GMO market and at the same time it could get people thinking about the issue who really didn’t pay much attention before. If the money moves in that direction everybody else will follow. You just have to encourage them to want to do it and above all make it profitable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just think of all the disparate special interests that are pushing their own dogs in this fight.

That happens with any new product. You want to sell it, you need to market it, make people want it. If you want to sell 'State-of-the-art all-new genetically modified whatever', then that's what you advertise and that's what you sell. Take out TV and newspaper ads and explain to the consumers why they should want to buy this product, what's good about it - just like the producers of everything else from chocolate bars, ice-cream and beer to houses and cars do. If you think that labelling your product honestly will encourage people not to buy it - well then, maybe you need to be selling something else.

Better to establish a certification process by which food growers and producers could apply for GMO free status and earn a Certified GMO Free rating.

But why? What's special about GMO that it should get special treatment? Other foods don't get Free of Stuff that Shouldn't Be There In the First Place certification.

Nobody has yet been able to tell me why I should want to eat GMO. What's in it for me?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But why? What's special about GMO that it should get special treatment? Other foods don't get Free of Stuff that Shouldn't Be There In the First Place certification.

Sure they do,organic certification does pretty much that. Many proponents of organic agriculture are adamant that synthetic chemicals have no place in agriculture and pretty much shouldn't be there in the first place. An organic certification means those products are free from contamination and that adds to their value. I mean come on, fat free, sodium free, sugar free...... All selling points based on the freedom from something or another.

But I think you misread the intent of my suggestions, like I'm defending GMOs. Actually, I'm merely suggesting that the goal of letting the consumer be able to make an informed decision, would have a better chance of success if it was approached in a less combative fashion. Instead of polarizing the issue we should be working towards a collaborative relationship between the different players; a relationship that can lead to policies that everybody can be satisfied with.

I look at the GE industry like it's a stubborn mule, Push it and it just digs in it's heels. Dangle a carrot in front of it's nose and you can lead it where you want. Give the industry the incentive and motivation to do what you think is best, make them see that's in their best interest, too and they will do the rest. Try to jam something down their throat, even if it's a good thing, and they'll fight back. That's how you get nowhere fast.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An organic certification means those products are free from contamination and that adds to their value.

And there we have it. A 'contains GMO' label does not add anything to the value of the product, in fact it detracts from it, which is why the GMO producers are fighting tooth and nail against proper labelling. They know that given the choice people will choose not to buy their product, and they have no argument, no selling point, as to why people should want to buy what they are selling. In Japan products containing soy, potato, corn etc., state on the label that they 'do not contain GMO' not because the labelling laws say they must, but because it's a selling point; people don't want GMOs, and the producers of GMOs know this. So why do anything to help the business model of folk who are knowingly trying to sneak onto the market stuff the market doesn't want?

Producers are not allowed to mix stuff grown using synthetic chemicals in with stuff labelled 'organic' and still call it organic; neither should they be allowed to mix GMO in with non-GMO and still be able to pretend it's 'just the same'.

the goal of letting the consumer be able to make an informed decision, would have a better chance of success if it was approached in a less combative fashion

Well, in a way I agree with that - honey traps more flies than vinegar - but it's not as if the GMO folk have shied away from being combative themselves; suing farmers whose crops have been contaminated with GMO and using underhanded measures to get scientific reports that document the problems with GMOs debunked or withdrawn, isn't the way to make friends.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In Japan products containing soy, potato, corn etc., state on the label that they 'do not contain GMO' not because the labelling laws say they must, but because it's a selling point

That is exactly what I'm getting at.

With organic products; a label stating the product was grown using organic agricultural practices, and has been certified as such, is a very positive and powerful selling point. This is a far more effective strategy than stipulating that organic products are left unidentified and everything else must be labeled "Not Organic". The same thing goes for GMOs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is exactly what I'm getting at.

That GMO has no selling point? I agree. So why should everyone else bend over backwards to help them sneak onto the market a product that cannot sell by itself?

This is a far more effective strategy than stipulating that organic products are left unidentified and everything else must be labeled "Not Organic". The same thing goes for GMOs.

In a world where synthetic agriculture chemicals are the norm, organic produce was the new kid on the block and it makes sense to label what's new, so that people know what it is and why they might want to buy it. Now GMO is the new kid, and if the producers of GMO want to sell their product they need to market it, tell us what it is and why we might want to buy it.

I have still not heard or read a single argument as to why I as a consumer would want to buy GMO over non-GMO. It's helpful that the tofu/miso/oil/etc manufacturers in Japan label their stuff 'non-GMO', but it would be a lot better and make shopping a lot easier if the GMO stuff was clearly labelled and properly marketed. Why should it be the people who are selling exactly the same stuff they have always been selling who are forced to make new labels?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Now GMO is the new kid, and if the producers of GMO want to sell their product they need to market it, tell us what it is and why we might want to buy it.

In reality the agri-tech industry that produces and sells GMO seed is not attempting market their products to the general public. But they have heavily marketed their products, gone to great lengths to explain the benefits and made a very good case for wanting to buy it. They may have not been able to convince you that you should want to buy GMO products, but they have done a bang up job at convincing their target market, which are farmers. 2012 saw over 17 million farmers world wide planting GMO seeds. If you have a bone to pick with anybody it should be the farmers.

This discussion could go on ad nauseam, mainly because of the clearly different perspectives that each of us have on the subject.

I'm just saying that I believe there are ways to address this issue without resorting to imposing one groups agenda on everybody else. Why should those people who are perfectly okay with GMOs be forced to "bend over backwards" to appease those who are not? That's just the way "I" see it.

On the other hand, I get the distinct impression that you feel the GMO industry should be held to the fire and punished for their perceived nefarious malfeasance. And I just don't see it that way.

So at this point I will respectfully agree to dis-agree with you and leave it at that.

Aloha

Just as an aside, a number of farmers that I know are starting to step back from using GMO seed. The reason they give is the growing anti-GMO sentiment that they see and the concern that it may negatively effect the sales of their crops. The down side is that they are going back to the heavy use of the chemicals that the GMOs were meant to reduce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the agri-tech industry that produces and sells GMO seed is not attempting market their products to the general public

Yes, I know. They can't, because what they are selling is of no benefit to the general public.

they have done a bang up job at convincing their target market, which are farmers. 2012 saw over 17 million farmers world wide planting GMO seeds. If you have a bone to pick with anybody it should be the farmers.

Well yes of course. When I said 'the people producing GMOs' I meant the people pulling them out of the ground and putting them in the shops and trying to slip them unseen into my shopping basket. And those people have not put the case for why the consumer should want to buy their GMO.

Why should those people who are perfectly okay with GMOs be forced to "bend over backwards" to appease those who are not?

It isn't a question of 'appeasing' anybody. If they have a product to sell, then the onus of marketing it and persuading the consumer to buy is on them. No other producer of any other basic food staple is able to sneak stuff onto the shelves in the guise of something else.

I get the distinct impression that you feel the GMO industry should be held to the fire and punished for their perceived nefarious malfeasance

Well that's a completely different question to the labelling argument, but lemmesee..... contamination of non-GMO fields, suing of farmers whose fields got contaminated, cross-pollination with weeds creating 'superweeds' resistant to herbicides, increased use of herbicides to combat this, elimination of beneficial insect habitats and thus the elimination of beneficial insects such as bees, the emergence of 'superpest bugs' resistant to the GMO toxins, growing suicide rates among Indian farmers who were duped into planting GMOs and left with failed crops and huge seed bills... lots of questions for the GMO people to answer before they can be allowed to step away from the fire.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm inclined to think the anti-GMO hysteria is just that; largely unfounded, and unscientific. I'm concerned that labeling requirements will drive up prices and set back the agricultural industry; 50 different labeling standards - with all the differing verification requirements that go into that... its much more than printing out a different label - sounds like a nightmare. I am worried that increased awareness of GMO content will lead to reversion to less efficient, more environmentally harmful farming techniques, and decreased food security.

All that being said, it seems impossible to me to get around the fact that the consumer has a right to know what he or she is consuming. The public demands to be informed, and it is entirely proper that the legislature facilitates this. It makes more sense to me to establish standards for "non-GMO" or "organic" food labels rather than the other way around, but that does not change the basic principal: one has a right to an honest answer as to the nature of the products one buys, especially when it comes to basic necessities.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm inclined to think the anti-GMO hysteria is just that; largely unfounded, and unscientific.

Yes and no. It's unscientific, in that we don't have the long-term science to know whether or not GMO foods are safe or not. Therefore your claims of it being unfounded are just that - unfounded. Due to the lack of science, we can't know whether or not fears about them are unfounded or not.

Let's take a real-world example - cocaine. Back in the early 20th century, cocaine was not only legal, it was touted as a good thing. There weren't the scientific studies nor long-term use to know whether it was good or bad. The same thing could have been said at the time about cocaine as you are saying about GMO foods now - that people who were suspicious of it were "hysterical" and that their fears were "unscientific and unfounded". History now tells us that cocaine is a bad thing and not good for you at all.

People who want GMO labeling simply want to have the choice to make their own decisions, rather than having their decisions made for them.

I'm concerned that labeling requirements will drive up prices and set back the agricultural industry

GMO foods are not going to disappear unless they are regulated out of existence. So it won't set back the agricultural industry. It may drive prices up - but only for non-GMO foods. It's very clear that some people don't care about eating GMO foods, and they will most definitely continue to buy them even with the labeling. And the people who don't want to eat GMO foods will likely have to pay a higher price, due to the higher manufacturing costs. Same as people who prefer organic foods do now. It's not like organic foods have ruined the agriculture industry, so it's unreasonable to think that non-GMO foods would ruin it either. It will simply be a niche (or maybe alternative) market.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

the people who don't want to eat GMO foods will likely have to pay a higher price, due to the higher manufacturing costs.

The people (farmers, food interests etc) who are opposed to clear labelling are trying to sell their GMOs at the same price as non-GMOs - they claim it's 'just the same' and there's no need to differentiate. Clear labelling would not mean that people wanting to avoid GMO would pay more; people choosing to buy GMO could expect to pay less, because the only selling point GMOs have is that they're supposedly cheaper due to (supposedly) higher yields and lower labour costs. Labelling would prevent the farmers raking in an unwarranted markup, which is presumably why they're so opposed to it. That, and the fact that most people (outside America at least) would prefer to avoid GMO.

the anti-GMO hysteria is just that; largely unfounded, and unscientific

That's a very condescending view. If I want to buy a blue winter coat, the 'scientific' fact that a red winter coat is every bit as safe and warm, and winter coats as a whole would probably be much cheaper if the manufacturers could just make up one huge batch of red dye and make nothing but red coats, is by the by. My desire for a blue coat may be unfounded, unscientific and irrational, but it's my money I'm spending and it's me who's going to be wearing the coat; and if I want blue, I don't want to be fobbed off with red.

What Strangerland says about cocaine could also be applied to tobacco, asbestos, absinthe, DDT, lead in paint and petrol, and watches with luminous dials.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Strangerland

Yes and no. It's unscientific, in that we don't have the long-term science to know whether or not GMO foods are safe or not.

There is a world of difference between making an informed decision based current knowledge and an understanding of what is known and what is not, and a knee-jerk reaction based on ignorance and fear of technological change. There are plenty of reasons why a rational person might choose to avoid GM foods; concerned about cross-pollination, don't like the way Monsanto is treating farmers, not eager to be an early adopter? Fine. I'm not talking about you. But don't pretend that an enormous portion of the anti-GMO movement isn't fueled by anti-science, anti-corporate Luddism and uninformed pseudo-environmentalism of the sort that thinks that anything that comes from a lab is bad, anything "natural" is good, big business is a NWO conspiracy, and that anything marked "local, organic" is by necessity better for the environment and therefore morally superior. Farmers are worried that GMO labeling will result in dramatic loss of sales for no other reason than "GMO" sounds reflexively scary to a large potion of the population; they are right to be, in my opinion.

Let's take a real-world example

Yes. Let's. How about butter? Remember back in the 80's when there was that huge push to get everyone to eat margarine because of how much better it was for you than real butter? And remember how, about a decade or so latter how everyone was freaking out about trans-fats and how incredibly super-bad margarine is for you?

I'm not sure what point you imagine your example makes; doctors used to endorse cigarettes as good for your nerves. So? Thalidomide isn't very good for pregnant mothers, but turns out is pretty useful for certain types of cancer patients. Scientific studies come and go. Later on they get discredited, or new studies provide new context. What is good for you in context A might not be in context B, benefits come with detriments, and our understanding changes over time. A study finding that a certain GM product is safe or not safe might later be found to be inaccurate or incomplete. If your point is, all-in-all, we gain better understanding over time, then I heartily agree with you. But that applies to any product, not just to GMOs. If you want to wait until there is more science so that you can make a better informed decision, then more power to you. But its not like there is ever going to be a definitive answer...

People who want GMO labeling simply want to have the choice to make their own decisions, rather than having their decisions made for them.

The real issue, in my view, is that no distinction is being made between GM products. "Frankenfoods" on one extreme, are treated by many as being in the same category as minor genetic manipulation - despite the fact the latter is merely doing in a lab what has been done by farmers in the field, via cross and selective breeding, for millennia. The idea for a general label that separates "GM" products from "non-GM" products does nothing to alleviate this issue; in fact, in this sense, it may actually make your choice less informed in a perverse sort of way.

It may drive prices up - but only for non-GMO foods.

This isn't true. First off, there are all the labeling and standard compliance costs involved. That alone will increase the cost of food. Second, the more people that avoid GM foods, the more farmers will abandon their use. This will drive average prices up and reduce the availability of cheaper GM products. Depending on how strong the reaction is, it may become harder to purchase the cheaper food products in many locations. What is in one sense a victory for the consumer, becomes in another a defeat of the same, if that makes any sense.

@Cleo

That's a very condescending view.

I didn't make much distinction between informed and uninformed opposition to GMO; that was an error, and I apologize. That said, I think there is indeed a large amount of hysteria, and that it deserves - as you put it - a healthy amount of "condescension."

If I want to buy a blue winter coat,

Again, an analogy that is largely off point. Your example has nothing to do with "science" and everything to do with personal preference as to taste. There are, for instance, many people that feel "organic" foods have better flavor quality than those grown with "chemical" pesticides and fertilizers. I'm not inclined to rule one way or the other, but if that is your perception then I have no issue with you choosing the "organic" option, or paying a premium to do so.

To use your analogy, it's more like you were used to buying blue coats and then someone came a long with new-fanged red ones that you then refused to wear because... essentially... they are new and therefore untested. Are these new coats safe? Are they as effective as the old blue ones? etc... etc... Some of these concerns might be legitimate, and the decisions to purchase or not, informed. However, there will also be a portion which are un- or mis-informed. I am afraid that the latter will be large enough to do damage.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Your example has nothing to do with "science" and everything to do with personal preference as to taste.

Yes indeed. Don't you use 'personal preference' when you go shopping? Or do you just fill your basket with anything that happens to fall into it off the shelf, because it's all 'safe'? And it isn't only food, of course. If you order a Merc from your local car dealer and he delivers a Nissan costing half the price, insists it's 'just as safe, complaining is unscientific' would you be happy to pay the Merc price for the Nissan? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Nissan, there's no suggestion that it isn't safe or won't get you from A to B every bit as efficiently as the Merc; but it isn't what you wanted, and since you're paying, it should be your choice.

It's insulting to try and force people to buy stuff they don't want. Give them the choice.

I have no issue with you choosing the "organic" option, or paying a premium to do so.

And there are regulations in place to determine what can and can not be labelled 'organic'. One problem with GMO is its propensity to contaminate other crops - vis the farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for accidentally growing GMO crops that they didn't want in the first place. Rather than resort to labelling the ever-dwindling selection of non-GMO stuff, far better to keep a check on the GMO stuff by labelling.

someone came a long with new-fanged(!) red ones that you then refused to wear because... essentially... they are new and therefore untested.

Businessmen do that all the time, put new products on the market. And when they do, it's up to them to tell the consumers about what it is they are trying to sell, and to explain to the consumer why s/he should want to at least try it. New products need to be marketed, and there is surely something very dodgy about any product that the producers don't want to market openly? Why can't they advertise GMO and explain to us why we should be buying in preference to non-GMO?

To go back to that coat, if the shop is eager to sell me the new-fangled red one that I'm naturally not sure about because I've never worn red before, the assistant will suggest I try it on and will tell me (truthfully or not) how much it suits me. She won't try to hustle me to the cash desk with something in an unopened plain paper wrapper and expect me to buy sight-unseen. That's what the GMO people are asking to be able to do.

there will also be a portion which are un- or mis-informed.

And still no one has answered the question of why I or anyone else should want to buy GMO. (No reason why you shouldn't isn't an answer) Why aren't the GMO people un-mis-informing us of the benefits of GMO? Surely it's up to them to tell us how wonderful this stuff is, and to explain all its benefits? Instead of fighting legitimate, reasonable labelling regulations, they should be spending their budgets on marketing and advertising their products in the normal way.

I am afraid that the latter will be large enough to do damage.

All the more reason for them to get stuck into some serious marketing, like the producers of any other new product are obliged to do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Farmers are worried that GMO labeling will result in dramatic loss of sales for no other reason than "GMO" sounds reflexively scary to a large potion of the population; they are right to be, in my opinion.

Considering what you wrote before that, this is has got be the disingenuous statement of the year!

There are plenty of reasons why a rational person might choose to avoid GM foods; concerned about cross-pollination, don't like the way Monsanto is treating farmers, not eager to be an early adopter? Fine. I'm not talking about you.

But later, you go on, as quoted, to say "no other reason". Dude, you cannot just dismiss all the rational reasons because some others might have irrational reasons.

Also, its pretty sick to put their profit incentive over my freedom of choice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

'GMO technology “has been used safely in our food supply for 20 years,”'

And no long term studies have been done to prove it. Bottom line is if there's nothing to hide, why want to hide it?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites