Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

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?

I would say most companies would put may contain GMO on everything to cover themselves or if that wasn’t allowed they would simply make sure there was some GMO in the mix and label it as being GMO it would probably be more cost effective tan leaving them open to law suits.

The expense will have to be borne by the consumer and not everyone cares about GMO.

So, let the ones who don't care, assume the cost. Then, at least those who don't want it will have a choice.. Each company knows where it's supply comes from, so if they buy only GMO corn for example, they send it to factories that make products that are labeled as GMO. If they can track a salmonella outbreak back to lettuce in Mexico, they can keep track of which food is GMO.

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?

reply to post by Phage

So how does this result in a better informed consumer?

Elementary, my dear phage...

the consumer is informed thusly, that the product contains GMO's

Because the company would be required to put a "GMO" label onto the package if they KNOW it is GMO. They couldn't just put "maybe" if they know for a fact it is, that would be disengenuous.

I'm sure the labeling bill would require some kind of test before the product is shipped, so I don't think there would be any excuse personally.If the product is tested as GMO positive, they would have to label it as GMO.

Those who know their food is NOT GMO after doing these tests would be required to label it as "non-GMO".

That's the only way I see it working out, and I don't think it's too far out of reach.

reply to post by DAVID64

That's a good point.
But, if a producer can be sure that their product contains no (or minimal GMO material), might it not be a better marketing device to clearly state "non-GMO" on the package instead of just not being required to place a "May contain GMO" label on it?

What the hell Phage... honestly. The companies already know very well which of their food items contain GMO's, the research and development of those items would be very well documented and hard to cover up. Putting an extra little bit of ink on the package to make the consumer aware of what is in the product is an extremely small expense when you consider the elaborate and ridiculous packaging they use on some products.

reply to post by Phage


Not if the bill doesn't allow such things as this.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I don't think you are aware of the complexity of the food production process.
From farm, to storage, to milling and the steps in between. It is not a simple process and in the US in involves billions of tons of material.

The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.

Doesn't the EU require GMO labeling? Someone had a thread here a while back that showed the label on Kraft mac and cheese that showed it containing GMO ingredients. Not that I would eat that anyway.

If it cost more so be it. Folks need to know when they are eating (poison) stuff like that so they can avoid it if they want (or care.)

Add - The "may contain GMO" is a cop out. If they don't know where the tortilla come from or what's in them they shouldn't be pawning them off on consumers.

reply to post by Phage


I don't see why a company who currently uses GMO's would have any monetary issues labeling GMO's.


The label can be the same as and right next to the food allergy warning that is on all food packaging.
This label often says "Contains: "Allergen" "
or "May contain "Allergen or made in a facility or shared equipment with "Allergen""

The only thing it costs the food company is ink.

There are already some products that are labeled non-gmo and have been certified. Additionally, organic has to be non-gmo.

Organic crops. The USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used.

USDA

I do not see how cross-contamination of GMO's would be anymore of a cost problem than allergens.

Originally posted by Bassago
Doesn't the EU require GMO labeling? Someone had a thread here a while back that showed the label on Kraft mac and cheese that showed it containing GMO ingredients. Not that I would eat that anyway.

]

Correct.

In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.

Source:UK Food Standards Agency

This means US companies who sell their products in the EU are already required to label their foods for GMO's.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I don't think you are aware of the complexity of the food production process.

Yes it is complex but it's also well documented and it's not hard to track the GMO products from their source. It's not like it has to be some super serious "war on GMO's", they already have everything they need to start labeling what they know are GMO products.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I don't think you are aware of the complexity of the food production process.
From farm, to storage, to milling and the steps in between. It is not a simple process and in the US in involves billions of tons of material.

The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.

edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you saying that they don't have people that buy the corn on their behalf or are you saying that their buyers get it in a dark alley? Of course they know where the corn is from. As far as I know, all that stuff has to be tracked for disease purposes.

It just seems to me that labeling all goods that contain some GMOs is thinking backwards.

It would be like labeling all the non kosher foods as non kosher.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to label the non GMO foods. It would justify the higher cost sort of like kosher foods to.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Yes it is complex but it's also well documented and it's not hard to track the GMO products from their source.

Is it well documented?
But think about it. This would require separate train cars/trucks. Separate storage facilities. Separate milling facilites. A typical corn mill runs 100,000 bushels (5.6 million pounds) of corn a day. Is each source of that corn tracked?

But again. What about the risk to the tortilla factory (or according to California's Prop. 37, the store) whose shoulders on which the responsibility falls should there be a mishap somewhere in the chain. A dock worker accidently moved a loading chute to the wrong bin and didn't tell anyone. Rather than take the risk of that happening, rather than take the chance of being sued. Doesn't just make more sense to put the "Maybe GMO" label on the package.

It seems that the consumer won't be any better informed about what has GMO and what doesn't because everything is likely to have the label on it.

Originally posted by Bassago
Doesn't the EU require GMO labeling?

Correct.

In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.

Source:UK Food Standards Agency

This means US companies who sell their products in the EU are already required to label their foods for GMO's.

Thanks collietta, thought so. So it looks like "most" of the labeling issues are already solved.

Originally posted by fenson76

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I don't think you are aware of the complexity of the food production process.
From farm, to storage, to milling and the steps in between. It is not a simple process and in the US in involves billions of tons of material.

The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.

edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you saying that they don't have people that buy the corn on their behalf or are you saying that their buyers get it in a dark alley? Of course they know where the corn is from. As far as I know, all that stuff has to be tracked for disease purposes.

edit on 8/7/2013 by fenson76 because: (no reason given)

you beat me to it.
some manufacturers have prefered farms they deal with. and send inspectors out to the fields.
and most big manufacturers have their own farms, and they know damn good and well what seeds they buy.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What's the difference between labeling non-GMO and GMO? It's the same exact concept.