But that might in turn create jobs.
The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the fr
- Thread starter John F Kennedy III
- Start date
But that might in turn create jobs.
This is amazingly untrue.
Please think carefully when comparing state-subsidized corporate agriculture to honest and clean small-scale food production. The cost of that ear of GMO corn you love so much would be much more expensive if not for government hand-outs and legal protections. In fact, it would be more expensive than those hippie organic ears of corn.
It amazes me how many people seem to think the food industry operates within the free market.
KingNothing
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,662
it's free as far as nobody is ever forced to buy any of it.
I was serious, but I don't care about jobs. I was stating a possibility.
Your standard of freedom is very low.
Go ahead and start your own backyard farm and try to compete without government intervention. Let me know how that goes for you.
wait, I'm not the one complaining, so what am I asked to prove to you?
Eh? You replied to my post.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
It's not a law, it's an FDA Regulation. Requested by Monsanto et al.
And yes. Yes it is.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
No, Monsanto lobbied the FDA regulators to ban "GMO-Free" labeling because it 'inherently assumes that GMO products are unhealthy, which puts our products at a market disadvantage.' so they did.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
And it has no effect on the already existing private organizations that label products as non-gmo. Sure they can't say it is 100% guaranteed no-gmo, they just have to word their certification that says they put in every effort to verify that there is no gmo in the product.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Here you go, screw the FDA. The market provides:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/product-verification/process/
that is what whole foods uses for their products and labeling.
Not entirely a bad reason, given the scaremongering propaganda on the Internet these days, but if it's factual and accurate, it shouldn't be illegal. I wonder if the labels said " not approved or evaluated by FDA or Monsanto" they could still ban it.
I think I start to see the 'problem' now. FDA requires non drugs to be labeled 'not evaluated by FDA' probably for liability reasons, and that approved drugs are required to have warning on side effects. However, 'organic and gmo free' are vague facts which have no predict power of its effects, side effects...etc unless and until tested. While people should still be free to make their choices no matter how stupid and baseless they can be, I am all for accuracy in labeling and fairness for the industry.
Monsanto is avoiding labeling on the gmo phrase, but they cannot stop labeling altogether, so eventually there will be a voluntary labeling and branding technique to undermine them.
So they effectively banned good business practices?
No, the effectively ban competition via misleading propaganda. Saying something is "trans fat free" or "hormone free" or "organic" says nothing about its health effects, unless the user knows in advance what they mean. This is different from side effects, but similar to ingredients, or nutritional information.
Stating whether or not your product is GMO is good business practice. Consumers should have a right to information on the products they buy. The last thing that should be done is to outlaw companies from providing information to consumers about their product.
In having good business practices there are bodies of commerce that organizes producers, retailers and consumers from the private and the meeting of government side for commerce. Whereby throughout the years of overseeing, have created and help the molding of laws such as: protections against criminals, code of conducts, responsibility to consumers and customers, fair trading and business ethics, anti-competition criteria, occupational, health and safety standards.... these were the basis of lead and mercury mandate, poisonous substances warning, safety toys Quality Assurance, harmful allergies and poisoning with preservatives, additives and ingredients warnings, etc... as science is neither moral or ethical as it can be used for good and bad.... the public consensus decides the ruling under consumer rights advocates
Why? Unless GMO is either good or bad, or testable? I'm not against consumers choosing what they like, even if its purely superficial and pointless, and I am definitely not for outlawing any labeling, but I don't see what's good practice about GMO labeling, unless we want to perpetuate the propaganda that GMO is actually either always better or always worse.
I'm not sure I necessarily trust voluntary and private testing for safety, but a good example of voluntary labeling for non-safety purposes is Kosher labeling.
I believe its always good business practice to give consumers as much honest information about your product as possible. If you want to disclose something true about your product, you should be allowed to do it.
Similar threads
