Washington votes against GMO labeling – preliminary results

One. The industry isn't set up at the moment for the new labeling system that'll be required. Changing that requires money, probably lots of it. As much as they say it will? That I don't know, my days at that end of the industry are over.

Two. This effects the bottom line obviously. To counter that loss, they, the industry, will have to pass on the cost to their middle men, and ultimately, us the consumer.

I work at the bottom side of that chain. All along the way, the costs will be passed down the chain. Them. The middle men, the suppliers. Me, at the level of the stores who will be paying more for our product items. Then you, the consumer. That means more money for less food. Tell me how that doesn't hurt everyone.

...and how does this hurt my small farmers? The cost pass ons aren't just for your can of peas. It's the diesel fuel for the truck, tractor, and other farm implements used to grow that food, regardless of whether or not it's GMO.

I have no issue with letting people know about whether or not their food is GMO derived, or not. I, for the most part, buy organic, or have friends who grow their own, and are nice enough to grow some for me.

I'm just seeing the other side of this. It's going to effect us adversely from the economic side, perhaps more than we might think, or in my case, fear.

I'm just not sure that the benefits (which are obvious), will outweigh the problems. That's why I voted against.

If that makes me crazy, so be it. I'm nutty as a holiday fruit cake.

reply to post by seagull


You keep mentioning increased costs for the farmer, but your claim doesn't hold water.

We're talking about the addition of the single and very simple phrase 'Contains GMO' or conversely, an equally simple phrase 'Does not contain GMO' onto the *already about to be printed anyway* packaging at the packaging factory.

Are you seriously basing your entire argument on this?

The cost of the packaging will remain the same, the words GMO or NO GMO are not going to be printed in liquid gold, or studded with diamonds mate.

And what are you talking about industry finalising the regs..the regs will be simplicity itself...either a food product, destined for the domestic market HAS GMO derived ingredients or DOES NOT have GMO ingredients! Please don't try to say some industry panel will be spending millions and take months or years to arrive at this screamingly obvious conclusion. It does, or it doesn't contain GMO is as hard as it gets.

There...i've just solved the industry's dilemma for them..i won't hold my breath waiting for my consultation money.

There will be NO extra costs for the farmer, and NO extra costs, other than those the industry think they'll get away with, for the consumer.

It's a deliberate scare tactic designed to financially frighten people, hoping to sway them away from insisting on the right to know the origin of their food right at the point of purchase through simple labelling if they think it's going to drive up already high food costs. When times are hard, people vote with their budget in mind, the corps obviously know this.

If you truely believe there will be these price rises if labelling to indicate the presence of GMO ingredients is made mandatory, then i challenge you to show exactly how these costs are going to ramp up, if you accept, i'd ask that you be precise and not vague and break down real world costs as you percieve them, that you feel might contribute to the rising costs you speak of and apply them to your argument.

But in reality, i've already answered the point of package labelling being free, as obviously if the package is being manufactured, printed with farm name, product name and description, cooking advice and serving suggestions, contraindications for allergy sufferers (peanuts for example), weight, price..ANYWAY!

Adding the GMO or NO GMO printing, in addition to all the other print on the package isn't going to make an iota of difference from a package manufacturing cost point of view...if anything, package manufacturers will be using the 'free GMO or NO-GMO labelling' additions as part of their marketing to keep existing customers and draw in new business...i certainly would do if i were in the packging industry, as there is literally no cost in doing so.

Exactly!! I see labels change all the time. I think I have two cans of the exact same brand of cream of mushroom soup in my cabinet now. One has a recipe for some kind of chicken dish on the back, the other has some kind of noodle bake. Guess what??! Both cans of soup cost the exact same amount of money. Amazing.
But apparently putting a couple of words on the front is entirely different than an ENORMOUS recipe on the back of the can. Hmmmm weird.

reply to post by MysterX


So changing the labels.


"May contain GMO".

How has that made the consumer any safer, or more aware?

Just curious.

Yes, they change labels all the time... Oh, they do. Did you know that that costs money? Sure you did.

...and, drumroll please, it makes the product more expensive. That price is passed down to the next level. That individual can of mushroom soup is now a penny or two more expensive than it was for my store. Doesn't sound like much does it.

Multiply that by the thirty or forty cases a week (24 cans in the case of Campbells)...it starts to add up. Eventually, or sooner, we have to raise the price to make up the difference.

But hey, you've stuck it to the man.

seagull
reply to post by MysterX

 

So changing the labels.


"May contain GMO".

How has that made the consumer any safer, or more aware?

Just curious.

Yes, they change labels all the time... Oh, they do. Did you know that that costs money? Sure you did.


But hey, you've stuck it to the man.

edit on 11/6/2013 by seagull because: (no reason given)

The same way the food allergy label makes the consumer safer and more aware.
All packaged food products have a label that says may contain "allergen," made in a facility that produces "allergen" or contains "allergen."
I know this because I have to check labels for food allergens. If I don't, my daughter would die from anaphalaxis.
It has never raised the cost of the products bought and a line of ink costs no more than a snazzy new ad on the box advertising the latest diet fad.

Think about how much money that was spent on the no campaign. If these poor companies can afford to throw that much money behind misleading ads that were everywhere, even advertised right here on ATS, they can afford a line of ink right underneath the allergen label.

All those who fell for the propaganda did Washington consumers a disservice. And all for what, money?


To avoid GMO's and try to heal my daughters messed up immune system, I will have to resume our current confusing labeling practice which the no campaign said was good enough. That means looking at bar codes of produce hoping they are non-GMO, hoping organic still means organic and looking for the Non-GMO project label.

The amount of money spent on the no campaign wasn't near what this would cost the consumer in the long run.

Just asking a question here:

Who's going to be checking to make sure this is actually happening? Govt. More money spent. By bureaucrats who in reality don't care...

...and eventually the companies catch on, and begin to ignore it. So, all that money spent for what exactly?

The consumer enforce it? Yeah, right. The same people who can't be bothered to vote, or turn out for civic planning meetings? Who have the attention span of hyperactive fruit flies?

Don't worry though...

The legislature will hear all this fuss, and pass some form of the same thing in the next year. Then I'll get to listen to people complain how expensive that can of mushroom soup is getting...

But, hey, we're all safer, right?

...and that farmer who had to sell his farm because the expenses were just a bit more than he could afford is just collateral damage, right?

seagull
reply to post by MysterX

 

So changing the labels.


"May contain GMO".

How has that made the consumer any safer, or more aware?

Just curious.

I tell you how that help me, is very simple, rather than me going to the store and having to research the labels for the hidden GMOs it will make easier for me as a consumer to ditch the ones with GMO labels.

Remember the safety of your family should be priceless.

Is simple, at least is my choice to get them or not.

reply to post by seagull


I did ask you to be precise, not vague...you failed.

I'll bow out at this point, as i appear to be debating with someone who is grasping at straws in order to justify a position, rather than using conviction and evidence of that position to properly and convincingly justify it.

It's a very, very weak position i'm afraid, especially when you essentially voted to deny millions of consumers the basic right to information about where there food comes from and what it contains...not exactly the hallmark of someone who professes to believe in the mantra of 'deny ignorance' is it...it's actually the complete opposite, and worst of all, this 'deny information' you admit to supporting, is based on weak, poorly researched and frankly inaccurate financial scare tactics, wholly unsupported by real world facts.

Your opinions are your own, and i support your right to express them, it's a pity you feel your countrymen and women don't deserve to enjoy a similar right to know what is in the food destined for their families table.

Bad form for an ATS moderator IMO, but that's the way the cookie crumbles i suppose..hopefully a NON-GMO cookie too..but then again, how can we tell?