Slashdot Mirror


California Wants Genetically Modified Foods To Be Labelled

bbianca127 writes "In November, California will be voting on Proposition 37. The proposition would mandate putting labels on foods that have been genetically modified. While supporters of the proposition think that consumers deserve to know what they're eating, opponents call it 'anti-science' and have donated $25 million to defeating the measure. From the article: 'Unsurprisingly, the battle has gotten very expensive, very quickly. Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition. In comparison, the organic farmers and environmentalists who support the proposition have managed to raise less than a tenth of that total amount.'"

7 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. Cheerleading for Kraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, this is what a totally free libertarian market looks like, huh? Big companies throwing temper tantrums at the very notion of consumer empowerment and scientists and government agents falling in line to soothe their wailing.

    How about this? SIt down with the top food scientists in the United States, come up with every possible ingredient and fact about the contents of the food consumers should know, and then hire the top graphic designers to present this information in an organized and clear way.

    Oh, what's that? You don't want to rustle Kraft and Dean Food's feathers? OK, forget it. Let's stick to our 1980s food labeling standards and continue eating anal glands with our vanilla wafer cookies in total blind ignorance.

  2. Land of the Free by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... except for freedom to make an informed choice? In my country all food must be labelled with nutritional information so consumers are able to make choices about what they eat. With the advent of genetically engineered or modified foods ("GE" or "GM") this labeling is very likely to be extended - as is being proposed in the US. For me this makes perfect sense, don't ban GE food, simply give people the choice whether they want to consume it or not. Consumer market forces will either make GE food a success or remove it far more effectively than tipping the scales with legal regulation.

    Why proponents of GE are trying to stop (via outspending) those who promote informed consumer choice is beyond me. If GE really is beneficial then consumers will see the reduced prices of the food, notice the improvement in quality and associate those with GE. If GE turns out to be hazardous in some cases then an informed consumer is made responsible for their own decision (although, in the US this hardly seems to be a factor these days in lawsuits). What could possibly go wrong with labeling food?

    1. Re:Land of the Free by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cross-breeding by inserting genes from completely different plant species? Is that normal? Or, for example, inserting essentially a pesticide protein into the food? I don't think that can be done using the "natural" cross-breeding techniques.

  3. Re:Our economic evidence by VinceVulpes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear

    What..... that big business, agri or otherwise, has no problem withholding salient information from the public (even when they have the right to know) in the name of profit?

  4. Re:What's to fear by uniquename72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want a big "Monsanto" label on these foods just so I can avoid supporting ridiculous patent lawsuits. If you really want to limit who can grow plants from *your* seeds, grow them in a dome where wind and bees can't get at them. (What? Then they won't pollinate? Too fucking bad.)

  5. Re:Reasonable by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer - and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred. The US ostensibly practices free market economics, after all.

    People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.

    I find it odd on a site where so many bristle at the very idea of closed-source software that people are basically endorsing closed-source food production.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Re:Lobbyists by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this isn't about their rights.

    Bullshit.

    We can drop all of the arguments about GMO here.

    What you want amounts to censorship . Just because people may use information to further their agenda does not make the release of such information unethical.

    All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there, the arguments about that information to occur, and the ability for anyone to make a purchasing decision based on that information.

    Ummm, that's not to anyone's benefit. Restricting the information because you may feel you "know what is best for the rest of us" is abhorrent logic.

    Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.

    Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.