On any given day, it might be possible for a product to contain 100% GM items, 50%, or 0%. That number might change on a day to day basis.
Easily handled by use of the same type of language already found on many product labels: "May contain one or more of the following ingredients..."
So, even if a company uses non-GM foods 99% of the time, they'd need to slap a 'may contain GM products' on the label, even though
usually it doesn't contain any.
And what about secondary effects?
Or tertiary effects, or quaternary effects... Yes, what about those?
You're the one who wants things labeled.
So, you slap a label on a can of corn made with GM corn...
What about a hamburger made from a cow that was fed GM corn? Do you consider that to be GM as well (even if the cow was 'all natural', he was still eating the evil, tainted GM feed.). Do you have to slap a label on that as well?
What about the cheese produced from the milk from a cow that was fed GM feed? Do you have to slap a GM label on that too?
You seem to think its just a simple case of "slap a label on the package". Its not.
And even if a company wanted to produce separate GM and non-GM product lines... that would basically require them to have twice the infrastructure, basically driving up the price for everyone.
I'm interested in the mathematics that support that conclusion. Please show your work.
A bakery currently sells 1000 loaves of bread. Because GM food is safe, it doesn't care whether it uses GM or non-GM wheat.
So, some government listens to idiots who say "label everything". You want to produce something to keep the idiots happy, while at the same time providing a product that is just as good but doesn't damage the environment as much.
So, You decide to produce 500 loaves of each type of bread... one GM, one non-GM. But, you can't mix the ingredients. So, you need 2 storage bins (one for flour produced from GM wheat, one for flour produced from non-GM wheat.) You may similarly need 2 different deliveries from the mills producing the flour, possibly 2 ovens (depending on how picky you have to be in separating the 2 of them). Plus, 2 different designs for packaging. (Yes they may be similar, but even a small design will require a different print run.)
Not to mention even more government bureaucracy as they have to now have inspectors checking that a company is actually adhering to the 'No GM' label.
So... food safety laws should be no more rigorous than our current capacity for enforcement?
First of all, this has nothing to do with
food safety, since there is no firm evidence that GM food is harmful in any way.
Secondly, enforcing labeling
will require more work from government inspectors. How do they know that they didn't let any GM food slip into the Non-GM product line? It will require additional tests (if its even possible to detect such things.... I suspect in most cases its not). Or, someone is going to audit a lot of paperwork, wander though processing plants, etc.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think they were going to verify that food labeled 'GM-free' actually was 'GM-free'?
If we're going to let that tail wag the dog, then, considering how inadequate the available resources are now, wouldn't logic dictate that we repeal some of the food safety laws already in place?
Ummm... no.
Food safety laws are there for food safety. GM labeling laws are there to satisfy irrational idiots. I'd rather not see my tax dollars being spent for inspectors to check for GMO content. I'd rather see them spending their time ensuring my food was healthy.
there are limits to just how far your 'information' will go.
Wait. Consumers don't have a right to be better informed because they will never be
perfectly informed?
Its not a case of them "never being perfectly informed". Its just that the extra information that they want to give costs money (for both the taxpayer and the company), will harm the environment,
and does absolutely nothing to help public health.
That's why we don't expect to see a list of pesticides used when growing the corn that made my corn flakes in the morning... that information would do absolutely nothing to improve anyone's health, and would be extremely burdensome for producers.
there is no religion that I'm aware of that specifically targets genetic modification.
You may be underestimating the ability of religious people to find scriptural support for their irrational notions -- but what I find most interesting about your comment is that it implies that if there
were a religion that specifically targeted genetic modification, that would be a different matter.
I wasn't the one who brought up the religious angle. Someone else did.
Saying that there are no religions that I'm aware of that ban GM food was just the easiest way to deal with the argument.
So, what your saying is because people are idiots we should always accept what they do?
Irrational and
stupid are not the same thing.
Functionally they are, at least in this case.
What, people don't have a right to base those decisions on gut instinct?
People have the right to hold whatever opinions they want. I have the right to call them idiots for holding those beliefs.
ETA: And I am going to be especially keen to point out when people are believing in nonsense, if their nonsense harms me in any way (increasing the cost of my food, increased taxes, harming the environment.)
