It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Grimpachi
Gosh.
You mean that a labeling requirement might result in....more...products with GMO materials?
Don't you find that disturbing?
strange that monosanto is a jewish owned firm yet their religion bans it and monasanto will not allow it in their canteens strange but true
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Phage
It's no different than Kosher certification. I'm not Jewish, but I have to pay the added cost of the "circle U" on pretty much EVERY food product I buy.
phage has gone to the dark side but shhh it's a secret
Originally posted by theMediator
Why the hell are you defending GMO's anyway Phage?
What is wrong with you these days, your threads really don't make sense anymore.
Originally posted by Phage
The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.
Originally posted by Phage
[...] the requirement to keep the two separate (GMO vs. non) in transport, storage, and milling is sure to add expense. And legal risk.
Originally posted by Phage
Isn't the point that some people think GMOs are poison?
Originally posted by geobro
strange that monosanto is a jewish owned firm yet their religion bans it and monasanto will not allow it in their canteens strange but true
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Phage
It's no different than Kosher certification. I'm not Jewish, but I have to pay the added cost of the "circle U" on pretty much EVERY food product I buy.
Originally posted by Phage
The labeling of GMO products is a topic of great concern. The arguments on both sides are reasonable (depending, of course, on your point of view).
The consumer has a right to know what they are eating. Absolutely! No way to argue that.
The expense will have to be borne by the consumer and not everyone cares about GMO. Oh, yeah. That makes sense too.
Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? Let's say that it does become a legal requirement that any food product which contains, or may contain GMO is required to put that information on the label in the interest of informed consumerism.
How would such a requirement be enforced? Well, if a certain level of GMO material is found in a product and that product does not carry the notification there would be hell to pay.
Now let's go back to the first argument against labeling, the expense. In order to be certain that there were no GMO materials or the materials did not exceed a certain threshold various new measures would have to be implemented in the transportation, storage, and processing of the raw materials. All of these measures would add expense and as we know, added expense is always passed on to the consumer. That's fine, let's assume that everyone is willing to accept that additional expense. What happens if somewhere in that complex chain, something goes wrong and a batch of GMO material gets mixed in with a batch of non-GMO material? Somebody is going to get fined and/or sued.
My question is this. With the added expense and legal risk involved, isn't the simplest solution for the producer to simply put the "May contain GMO" label on everything? It seems that is the only way to avoid legal risk (and increased costs).
So how does this result in a better informed consumer?
Originally posted by spartacus699
If tptb had their way they'd want us to eat our own sheat for dinner.