Posted on 04/10/2014 12:52:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Edited on 04/10/2014 12:58:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
GMO Nanny State PING!
Is that going to apply to GM fart-free cows as well?
Yeah? When are we going to get Country Of Origin Labeling?
so just label it.
they used to say x-rays were 100% safe too. Even put them in shoe stores.
used to say lead paint was safe.
coal dust in oreo cookies...
In other words, establish a convenient one-stop shopping center for bribery and corruption.
Good. Any state that wants to force it’s own labeling system is going to find that they have fewer choices that cost more on their store shelves.
Ain't that right, Monsanto?
For food: GMO should be labeled, country of origin should be labeled. Congress should require it, not had it to agencies. There are too many agencies and agents creating rules with the effect of law.
As we should.
Folks need to be able to choose based on the origin of their food.
No, instead of giving the FDA a choice, they should mandate all GMO foods to be labeled.
Bill O’Reilly, or some other Bill?
Just put the truth on labels. Consumers can sort it out.
Where grown.
Whether GMO or not.
Some people will care. Some will not. Give them the info.
Seems to me that the states should be free to require GMO labeling, if they so choose. Most European nations do so, or ban GMO entirely, and they seem to be managing. The Feds should butt out.
But the underlying premise - that if it's not GMO, then it's not a "frankenfood", is false. Knowing that it's not GMO doesn't tell you that it's healthy.
Organic foods, for example, arguably should be labelled as hazardous because they are approximately 100 times more likely to send you to the hospital than conventionally grown foods, mainly because of higher incidence of fecal material, e coli, insect parts, etc., but the incidence of risk is still de minimus, so unless you have an animus against organics, live and let live is a reasonable policy.
Conventional foods are orders of magnitude safer, so there is no reason to label them.
Inferentially, you raise a very important point. Whether and how much to label are BIG issues. The fact is, we do not require too much labelling because consumers won't be bothered to read it and are easily confused by too much detail. Remember, this is a country in which a majority voted for BO. Morons. And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?
So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy. The core principle is that labels should be simple, clear, and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling. The anti-GMO radicals want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.
To call the garbage that the radicals pass around junk science is an insult to junk everywhere. The science on this is clear, and overwhelming. A science based system will label a thousand other things long before it will label GMOs.
Meanwhile scientists are working on gene splicing for babies with 3 or more birth parents’ genetic history.
Can we tattoo the GMO babies as well?
Or is that sacred because homosexuals want “offspring”?
“And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?”
My bride reads labels to get us good stuff. I don’t want to eat apples from China or any other country that allows toxic stuff on fruit.
“So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy.”
Sure it is. Country of origin. Genetically modified or not. Tiny label.
“and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling.”
Heck I doubt it has even been tested. Certainly, it has not been around enough to do a longitudinal study on human health. I can tell you I heard that an Amish guy dumped GMO corn out and even the deer around here won’t eat it...
“The anti-GMO radicals”
Pejorative language.
“want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.”
You are being a great mind-reader in this statement, except you do not know their motives.
Free markets let consumers make choices. Let them choose. Don’t be afraid. Markets respond to consumer choice. If not many consumers want Chinese apples sprayed with lead, not many will sell. I you want them, go ahead and eat them.
The problem occurs when you withhold information because YOU know what is best for everyone. That is not conservative. That is not free choice. That is not free market.
Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foodsThere's never been a serious study of adverse health effects from long-term use of GM foods. It takes decades for the problems that dwarf wheat causes to appear, if there are problems with GM foods, it could take just as long.
An Amish crew put the addition on our house last year. They were impressed by my garden, and became even more so when I told them I only plant heirlooms. They told us they won’t use gmo seeds, and even commented on the squirrels and deer not eating it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.