 |
| Again, my proposal for GMO labeling |
California’s Prop 37, which would have required mandatory food labels for products containing GMOs, may have been defeated last November, but the anti-GMOers are still demanding it.
Connecticut and Maine have passed legislation requiring labeling. There is also GMO labeling legislation pending in 20 states alone.
Goodness knows I’ve been called a whole lot of things for opposing the idea of labels (“unethical” being the most civil), but these labels really are a bad idea. They don’t promote consumer choice – they promote consumer fear.
Scientific American recently ran an article about this issue, and here are three of the reasons they (and I) are against labels:
“We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture.”
“Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people’s health.”
“Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more.”
To curb vitamin A deficiency—which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them—researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A; several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.
That’s, quite frankly, unethical. This technology could literally be saving lives and the anti-science types want to stop it.
But even here in our own country, California’s Prop 37 would have increased the average family’s food bill by $400. Maybe the world is different across the country, but right here I don’t see people with an extra $400 to blow because some hysterical person with no evidence or data wants to label a perfectly safe product.
To read the entire Scientific American article, click here.
The labeling issue isn’t going away. It’ll be a fight we have for some time to come. But given the stakes, the science, and the ethics, I think it’s a fight worth having.
I feel the same was as you and blogged about it myself: <a href="http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2013/09/gmo-labeling/http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2013/09/gmo-label… />If labeling becomes mandatory it will give the antis specific items to target and get banned. Nothing good will come from labeling.
Interesting. So this is Monsanto's new angle – set up pro-GMO propaganda designed to look like it comes from a farmer. Continue to spew the lies, but create a beautiful new cloak for the lies, make it look like it comes from an attractive young farmer.
Well, thank you! However, Monsanto does not financially support my page, me, my content, my articles or anything else. Not that I think there is anything wrong with Monsanto, mind you. This page is just me – researching, creating, and writing content based on my experiences. And, I assure you, none of it is a lie – it is all thoroughly researched.
If you can't attack the message, atack the messenger. That's because the anti-GMO group is devoid of logic and science.
Food labeling laws need to be based on science not fear and ignorance. If we start down this path, there is no limit to the information that could be demanded to be displayed on the label. For example:- may contains crops planted during a full-moon- may contains crops planted on the 13th day of the month- may contains crops harvested on the 13th day of the month- only contains crops planted using no-till techniques- only contains crops planted using conventional tillage- . . . .
I'm also opposed to labeling but frankly have recently been wondering if it'd be better just to do it. There are so many foods that now have GMO content somewhere that the label would be on pretty near everything, so "label blindness" would happen quite quickly. Besides I really think the majority of people don't give a damn, they just want good food, at a reasonable price. GMO foods deliver that!
I understand where you're coming from, but my concern is that the attacks would only ramp up after the label is on there. If people wan to avoid the GMOs, they can currently buy organic. But that obviously isn't what this fight is about.
Actually, I used to diagreed with Bruce, but I read a post by by Bruce Lynas (a different Bruce?) , http://www.marklynas.org/2013/10/why-we-need-to-l… . If any food that contained even the tiniest amount of GM crop had to be labeled, the label would soon be meaningless and ignored by everyone. People would soon relealize that they have been eating a great deal of GM crops with no negative effects.