Do you think genetically modified foods (GMOs) should be labelled?

Hello. I just want to make it clear that I am NOT talking about whether GMOs are safe for human consumption. This is a good topic however it belongs in another thread. Right now I just want to talk about whether we should label them.

My position is that we should. We the consumers have the right to know what goes into our food and maybe by what processes our food came about. However, on this other forum, I encountered opposition. Someone was saying that for a consumer to demand to know whether his food is GMO or not, it's irrelevant. It'd be like asking what the race the food manufacturing worker was, or what size shoes he wore. Also, someone also said that GMO-labelling would increase the prices of food for everybody, which is not fair to those who do not have a problem with GMOs.

Your thoughts?

 

if they have different nutrient values then the original.. YES, they shoudl be labeled as such

the south change the way they processed corn and we had Pellagra... we need to know these things

.

 

You know full well that every manufacturer's products have "different nutritional values" whether they are the same or organic or not.


As to the OP, no.

 

people have a right to know what they are eating, why are you against them knowing that?

 

how about a new term, non-gmo modified... only non-gmo foods can use that label

 

Of course, GMO foods should be labeled. There are cultural, religious, biological and scientific reasons to label foods properly. It's simply a matter of Truth in Advertising.

That would be a False Analogy Fallacy.

 

I believe FreshAir has it exactly right. The use of GMO produce in our food supply is too pervasive to make labeling GMO foods worthwhile. It would be better to label non-GMO foods. In this way, (1) what is meant by such a label can be well specified, (2) correct use of such a label can be well regulated, and (3) any associated costs can be passed on to those for whom such a designation is important.

 

Yes they should be labelled.

 

I say no to labeling. Here in CA we have prop 65 where businesses have to post if they have things on the premises that are known to cause cancer, birth detects, or reproductive harm. The signs are everywhere you go, and they go unnoticed.

If Fred's combine service harvests a gmo crop today, and a non gmo crop tomorrow, he cross contaminated. Same with trucks, trains, silos, and mills. Everyone will just label everything.

 

That seems to be something you might be concerned with, so you should only buy food that is labeled "Non-GMO" or somesuch.

 

I think mandated labeling should be limited to medical necessities. This doesn't just go for whatever health hazards may exist in the food, but the person as well. Gluten intolerant people benefit from food labeling, as do diabetics

As for GMOs, there has yet to be any scientific discovery to show that labeling them is a medical necessity, and his definitely isn't due to a lack of study

 

Non issue, there's already labels on them.

 

Laws already exist that require listing ingredients and listing nutritional value. Adding a line in the nutritional information block that says "Contains GMO ingredients" or "Contains no GMO ingredients" will not cost any more, and it provides information that many consider to be as important as what is already required.

There is no good reason to withhold this information from the public. But there is reason: a bad one, and that is that the manufacturer wants to conceal the facts.

There are good reasons to require it, however. GMO crops are resulting in increasing levels of glyphosate (Roundup) being used on crops and it has been detected in corn, wheat, and canola oil to name a few. In fact, "organic honey" from Iowa has been found to contain 10 times more glyphosate than the level that is allowed in Europe. http://bit.ly/2gDfbx0

People have a right to know what they are buying and eating. And again, there is no good reason to withhold this information from the consumer other than deception for profit.

 

All the chicken littles that worry about genetically modified food needs to understand that 99% of all the food they eat has been modified over time. Almost all foods are the result of hybredization and being modified.

Example ------------- research corn. It originally pretty much resembled a plant more like wheat.

 

Stop trying to confuse people.... -or is the problem your own confusion? Hybrids (learn to spell it) are the result of cross-pollination. This happens in nature. And at no time does it create corn DNA with a jellyfish gene in it. Genetic modification has no similarity to hybridization.

The question on my mind is why you, personally, want genetic modification to be kept a secret. Why don't you want the consumer to know what they're buying? Why do you want to hide this from them?

 

I agree. They should be labelled. I'm fine with labelling GMOs or Non-GMOs, as long as it is consistent and the consumer gets the information they need.

I'm not so concerned about corn being hybridized and getting higher crop yields. However, I am concerned about things like "Round-Up Ready" corn with residue not being labeled for those sensitive to chemicals. Allowing it to be used in the production of baby food is probably not a good idea either.

Grocers label "organic" produce and charge more for it than other produce. Some are willing to pay extra for "organic" and some aren't. Some people need to know if foods are gluten free or not. If people want or need to avoid certain food products, they should be able to find that information on the product.

 

What is your concern with Round-Up ? Farmers spray alot more different chemicals that are far more dangerous than Round-Up. IF anything Round-Up ready has made the food supply safer compared to other chemicals that were used.

 

Do as I say, research what corn plants came from. I dont want to hide anything I want people to know the truth. The truth is almost all food has be modified by people.

 

Other than paranoia there is no good reason to label it. It's like cage free eggs, or organic products, they cost more because more of your product is eaten by predators or lost due to not being found, in the former case and in the later case more likely to be contaminated with e.coli because it was fertilized with feces.

 

I am not sure. But the excuses you were given seem pretty lame.
Increased label cost? What, $0.001?

 

It is not about consumer education. It is about creating a cash cow for trial lawyers who can wait for a hungover employee of a supplier of an ingredient that gets sold to someone like Kraft or Nestle to throw in a GMO product and then sue the hell out of Kraft and Nestle in some California class-action lawsuit off which the lawyers will rake in tens of millions of dollars.

 

Which is fine, if the company desires to gain your business. If not... then don't buy from them.

I'm not seeing the problem here. Vote with your dollars, and you don't need anything else. Just buy from companies you know sell non-GMO food!

So what is the damn problem? Why do you need to drag everybody else into your fetish about GMO foods?

 

What in the heck are you ranting about?
How is it related to my post?

 

You're saying that label costs aren't important. I'm saying that label costs aren't up to you, an individual consumer to decide upon. What you can do is spend your money with companies that think like you, and don't mind spending that .0001 cent on updating their labels to inform you that they do not have GMO foods.

This isn't rocket science, dude. You seem to care about GMO foods, so vote with your dollars, and leave the rest of us alone.

Is this a possibility?

 

I seem to care?
My statement to the OP was, I don't know.
I did say the added cost to a label was a lame excuse, to whoever used that as an against. Not that I said a label should be required.

Your projecting is very unbecoming. And it seems your reading comprehension is not very good.
Maybe you should belch and get rid of that gas clogging up the mind.