If informed consent is the objective, why don't we put a label on all organic products saying "no added nutritional value; fertilized with manure; high risk of e coli and insect parts contamination." But no -- the organic lobby wants consumers to think they're buying a superior product, which is not the case.
Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers? The cry will go up, "The public has a right to know." Well fine -- base product labelling on demonstrable risk. If the labelling is science based, GM crops (which are thoroughly tested before coming to market) will be so far down the list that they'll never get labelled.
The campaign is about creating a superstition. If you are superstitious, go to the store and buy organic. Personally, I avoid organics. I dislike paying a premium to hucksters, and while I'm not excessively squeamish, I prefer not putting poop on my food. I know that's how food was grown for thousands of years, but we have better methods today.
You wrote:
The problem is, this kind of labeling has nothing to do with health risks.
It has everything to do with health risks, at least for me. People and groups may have a number of motives and interests. I noticed a number of groups listed at the end of the article which i dont normally agree. Also the organic food lobby is there. But what about the big agriculture companies and their motives?
None of these motives are my motives. I simply do not want to be a participant in a research project. And I see this proposition as a simple way to give the power to the individual to choose.
Further on you wrote:
Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers?
How do you know the questions are bogus? This technology is so new, no one knows what if any long term effects may be. Do you really want to trust the large corporation or government studies? Are you really so sure there are no long term health effects? I am not. Again I say, let the people decide.
You wrote:
The problem is, this kind of labeling has nothing to do with health risks.
It has everything to do with health risks, at least for me. People and groups may have a number of motives and interests. I noticed a number of groups listed at the end of the article which i dont normally agree. Also the organic food lobby is there. But what about the big agriculture companies and their motives?
None of these motives are my motives. I simply do not want to be a participant in a research project. And I see this proposition as a simple way to give the power to the individual to choose.
Further on you wrote:
Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers?
How do you know the questions are bogus? This technology is so new, no one knows what if any long term effects may be. Do you really want to trust the large corporation or government studies? Are you really so sure there are no long term health effects? I am not. Again I say, let the people decide.