Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
This is actually a mildly subtle point, which is why people who don't 'get it' are so immediately dismissive. There's nothing wrong with providing more information to consumers. Hell every product we sell could come with small book's worth of information about its chemical contents, health risks, place of origin, worker conditions which could be considered valuable to the buyer. The question is why this specific piece of information is being fought for so hard. And that's because there's a movement that vehemently opposes GMOs and are trying to use labeling to scare people into avoiding (what their opponents say is) a completely safe product.
I'm not a scientist so I'm not qualified to evaluate the various and contradictory studies about the risks or non-risks of GMO foods. However, this battle should be taking place in labs and the FDA. Using labeling and the fact that GMO sounds scary to hurt GMO producers is the definition of anti-science FUD. It's not anti-science in the sense that the movement disagrees with a widely held scientific consensus but that they are using psychological and political tricks to subvert the actual scientific process.
> We're told if it's kosher.
This is not a government requirement, there are committees of jews that evaluate if a product is kosher or not and allow their seal to be placed on the packaging. Jewish families will even have a preference for which committees they trust.
Another "mildly subtle" point: the anti-labeling thing is promulgated by pro-GMO lobbyists and pro-GMO business interests, but those people are engaging in very short-term thinking, as is so often the case in American business. If they were to support GMO labeling the whole thing would blow over as soon as the label became "normalized."
That's just a hypothesis, but based on the way genuinely unhealthy things tend not to have disappeared from the market just because they're on a label, I think it's true.
Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe."
> Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more than just the words on the label.
I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering.
What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option.
Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1].
> I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering.
And therefore I trust you to make a reasoned decision. How about your cousin who is on deepak chopra's mailing list, though? Will she make the same reasoned decision?
All the debate is about is mandatory labels on the side of the can. How about, people who know what they're doing and can make reasoned decisions, can look up information on their smart phone or whatever- but the people who are going to make a kneejerk emotional decision that winds up penalizing GMO foods and benefiting the organic alternative for emotional reasons won't see any scary labels that exert undue influence on the marketplace- would that be a reasonable compromise?
Kosher labelling is not mandatory. Mandating that all foods be either labelled as KOSHER or NON-KOSHER would be a better example, and something I hope nobody would support.
Producers should be free to add any of these labels to their products, but mandating that all products are labelled in regard to GMOs when there's no evidence that GMOs have any proven impact on health or the nutrition of the food does border on scaremongering.
Nope. The system is implicit that the credit card companies will take care of that. While both sides need an adjudicator, there is a system in place to spot/stop bad actors. Not a perfect system, fraud still happens. But a system none the less.
