80% of Americans...

[JeffDG]

Think that food containing DNA should be labeled:
http://io9.com/80-of-americans-supp...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

My favourite proposed label:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

I'm also taking this opportunity to demand labeling for all foods containing Hydrogen Hydroxide.

 

[Jim Logajan]

As long as they label any foods containing lipid bylayers, I'd feel safer.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Industry is opposed to mandatory labeling for many valid reasons.

Tell us some valid reasons, please.

• Ah. So it is now up to those affected by a law to find valid reasons why it should not be enacted, rather than it being up to the those proposing the law to find valid reasons why it should be enacted. Fundamental inversion of the onus, making it easier to enact more laws. (Pretty odd coming from someone I thought understood the origin of the erosion of freedoms by the collective.)
• "Organic" farmers are funding GMO labeling law efforts to gain a competitive advantage; once the "neutral" label is applied they will hit on the emotion-laden "Frankenfood" to drive consumers to their more costly brands.
• GMO foods in the more modern sense have been around for years and been consumed by millions and no one has yet to claim any specific health hazard that consumption may have caused.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Yes, you should have a valid reason to deny the consumer information.

You see two cans of corn on the store shelf. One says the corn in it is genetically modified. Based only on that, can you discern which is objectively safer or more nutritious? Did the label provide you with anything objectively useful?

 

[Jim Logajan]

The consumer decided they do or don't want to risk feeding their family or themselves a product they are uninformed about that may have unknown effects coming from an industry that has no great history of caring about health, only profit.

Turns out the can that wasn't labeled GM contained Clostridium botulinum. The consumer thought they were informed when they chose it.

Industry is at fault for this, they bought it with the karma they have created over the last couple of centuries. This is in evidence all the way back to The Jungle's expose on meat packing.

The food industry has no right whatsoever to expect any trust from the consumer. They have done nothing to earn that trust especially when you look at the track record of contaminated food and vegetables.

Oh my. Most current cases of food contamination appear to occur because of poor practices or inadequate training at the food service (e.g. restaurant) level, not at the wholesale level. Companies stupid enough to cut corners at the wholesale level get clobbered if they screw up, and they know it. Eventually the better run firms have survived there.

By the way, the FDA already requires food producers demonstrate food from genetically modified organisms are safe. They apply the same criteria to all foods.

One last note: Monsanto, who is often invoked as the evil corporation pushing GMOs, already labels all its seeds as to which are GMO and what traits are affected by the modifications. They generally don't sell directly to the consumer and would only be indirectly affected by GMO labeling laws; nothing of their business practices are affected as far as I can tell. Farmers and grocers are the ones who are affected the most and the consumer yields the least useful information possible.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Is the consumer demanding that level of labeling?

Voters in Oregon and Colorado rejected GMO labeling laws. The consumer isn't demanding anything as best I can tell.