Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: GMO labeling page 2

  1. #11
    JWBooth's Avatar
    JWBooth is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    129
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    I'm curious if anybody thinks it is a bad idea to label GMO foods.
    It is a bad idea to have government force people to label GMO food. It is not a bad idea to label GMO food. If we had a free market in food, companies like Monsanto and ADM wouldn't exist, GMO food might have never even come about, and if it did we'd surely have labeling by now. Government is the cause of our current state of affairs. There is something perverse in the idea of lobbying for more government regulations to rectify the situation that was caused entirely by government regulations and market manipulations, but I get why people think it might be the least bad option. I just hope we don't forget the big picture. Government and regulations are the enemy. Ultimately they need to slain. Laws like Prop 37 might make things slightly better in the short term, but they do it in a way that empowers the very entity that we need to be fighting. We can't lose sight of that. The greatest "reform" to fix our current food problems would be to burn Sacramento and Washington DC to the ground.

  2. #12
    Urban Forager's Avatar
    Urban Forager is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,995
    I'm voting for it.

  3. #13
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,704
    JWBooth, I agree with you in theory. I really do. However, we're not talking a level playing field. If you look at Monsanto's "in" at the FDA, USDA, etc., you'll see that this has to be done at a state level to get the attention of the Feds. The Feds have already greenlighted GMOs and the non-labelling of such.

    When BGH was the issue, the companies that produced the stuff actually tried to prohiibit companies (like Ben & Jerry) from putting "no BGH" on their labels. Fortunately, not enough judges could be coerced, and now companies are allowed to advertise that their dairy products are free of this hormone.

    I'm actually so paranoid of corn at this point that I literally wouldn't eat it ever again unless I grew it and the seed came from someone reputable in a country other than the U.S.

    The best way, of course, for change is voting with one's wallet. Unfortunately, it would take a very long time to convince the American public to stop buying anything in a can, box, or bag, until truth in labelling was a reality. In the meantime, the will of the (uneducated about food additives/adulturation) majority shouldn't supercede the minority's right to know what they are spending their money on to feed themselves and their families.

  4. #14
    Primal Moose's Avatar
    Primal Moose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brentwood
    Posts
    379
    I'm voting for it.

    As far as other states, it will be cheaper for them to keep the labels. With the distribution system in place, it will be difficult not to. Their choices would be to A, create nation wide labels (which, lets be serious, for better or worse, as goes CA, goes the nation); B, spend a huge amount of money to make CA specific labels; C, stop selling their product in CA (and, lets face it, if one company does that, another will just fill the void).

    Let's look at history. in 1987, New Jersey passed a law requiring all consumables have an expiration date, even water. Did they make NJ specific labels? Not an exact parallel, but you see my point.

    As far as whether or not it's right or wrong..I'm a libertarian and feel that it is right. First of all, it is coming from a state government, from the people to be exact, not the federal government, so no problem there. As far as level playing fields, there are none right now. In order for the free market to work, it needs a level playing field. Usually, yes, this mainly means that the government stays out of picking winners and losers. However, it also means that there are times that the government does get involved. For example, if one company used hired goons to intimidate customers of a rival company, creating an uneven playing field, should the government get involved? A free market does not mean no government involvement, it means that the government ensures an open and even playing field. Right now, we don't have that.

    In order for the free market to work, people have to know what their options are. Let's face it, the majority of people will always choose something that says "does not contain GMO" versus "does contain..." But no one knows. You can make a good guess, but you can't be certain. I mean, a bee research company comes out blaming GMOs for hive colony collapse...Monsanto buys the company and shuts down the research. How can you have an even playing field...let alone a free market...with that?

    ..........................

    One more thing to consider and prepare for though. This will have unintended consequences. When people start demanding non-GMO, store managers will have to start supplying it, which means that farmers will have to start growing it. The problem is that their fields are saturated with herbicides. Herbicides that non-GMO crops wont be able to resist....while it won't cause millions dying in the streets, Africa-type famine, not by a longshot, we will have some shortages, and I will be surprised if we don't have a noticeable price hike in the grocery stores, at least temporarily. When that happens, expect the companies to come back and say "See, it was a bad idea, go ahead and get rid of that law." And it will be up to us to stand up and tell them to shove it up their asses...

  5. #15
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,963
    Well, we currently have a law that says that companies CAN'T put "no GMOs" on the label. That's right, they can't say they don't have them! So yeah, a level playing field. I'd be okay if they decided to pass a law that said it's okay for companies to put "No GMOs" on the label. But since they have a law against it, we need the GMO labeling law.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Heaviest squat: 180 x 2. Heaviest Deadlift: 230 x 2

  6. #16
    Primal Moose's Avatar
    Primal Moose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brentwood
    Posts
    379
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Good point sbhikes, I forgot about that law.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •