The government has mandated labeling standards to warn consumers of potential hazards, like smoking's link to cancer and lung disease.
But science illiterates (AKA progressive social authoritarians) are taking that example and insisting GM foods should also carry a warning label - despite no instance of them being harmful or unhealthy.
The labeling question was debated in the 1990s and it was determined that labeling of new GM products would be required only if the foods themselves posed a safety concern - which makes sense. The first GM products were introduced in the United States around 1994 and by 1999, approximately 60 percent of all produce found in the typical grocery store was grown using GM seeds. Today, 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries grow GM crops. And numerous studies continue to confirm the safety of such products.
So why cater to science illiterates wrapping themselves in a flag of 'transparency'?
Even the European Commission, as anti-science a bunch as you can get, has concluded that there is no scientific research associating GMOs "with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."
Labels too costly, unneeded by Susan K. Finston, McClatchy-Tribune News Service
H/T David DeSpain
But science illiterates (AKA progressive social authoritarians) are taking that example and insisting GM foods should also carry a warning label - despite no instance of them being harmful or unhealthy.
The labeling question was debated in the 1990s and it was determined that labeling of new GM products would be required only if the foods themselves posed a safety concern - which makes sense. The first GM products were introduced in the United States around 1994 and by 1999, approximately 60 percent of all produce found in the typical grocery store was grown using GM seeds. Today, 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries grow GM crops. And numerous studies continue to confirm the safety of such products.
So why cater to science illiterates wrapping themselves in a flag of 'transparency'?
Even the European Commission, as anti-science a bunch as you can get, has concluded that there is no scientific research associating GMOs "with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."
Labels too costly, unneeded by Susan K. Finston, McClatchy-Tribune News Service
H/T David DeSpain
This is a classic case of where producers are able to substitute whatever they wish in the product line and continue to charge consumers as if they were all comparable. Whether this be related to taste, or costs, or whatever. This is not an issue about safety, but rather about information before making a purchase.
For example, it is my prerogative to determine whether I wish to purchase a product manufactured overseas or produced locally. It isn't a matter of safety or anything else. It's simply an economic choice. Similarly, I resent the idea that GMO foods are being introduced primarily to improve the profits of producers without passing any cost savings on to consumers. Therefore, I also reserve the right to be kept informed and determine where I spend my money.
As I said, this isn't about safety. It's about honesty and transparency in accounting for how goods are produced and the decisions consumers can make about their purchase.
In my view companies already have far too much leeway in bringing things to market such that the consumer is unaware of the choices being made on their behalf. For example, many of the economic problems we face are rationalized by claiming that people wish to buy cheap goods and consequently companies are forced to move jobs overseas, etc. to be competitive. However, in practice, much of the problem is the failure to properly inform consumers about the ramifications of their purchasing choices. Perhaps they would continue to make the same choices, perhaps not.
In the same vein, I wish to see more information and not less. So, in my view, GMO foods need to be labeled. Not as a warning, but as a part of general consumer information so that we can make better decisions regarding how we want our money to flow through the economy.