Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tiny Vermont Brings Food Industry To Its Knees On GMO Labels (ap.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the overabundant-use-of-pesticides dept.

schwit1 writes: General Mills' announcement on Friday that it will start labeling products that contain genetically modified ingredients to comply with a Vermont law shows food companies might be throwing in the towel, even as they hold out hope Congress will find a national solution. Tiny Vermont is the first state to require such labeling, effective July 1. Its fellow New England states of Maine and Connecticut have passed laws that require such labeling if other nearby states put one into effect. The U.S. Senate voted 48-49 Wednesday against a bill that would have blocked such state laws. The food industry is holding out hope that Congress will prevent states from requiring such labeling. Some companies say they plan to follow Vermont's law, while others are considering pulling their products from the small state.

19 of 740 comments (clear)

  1. Why conceal it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're happy with it, if it has advantages they can sell the consumers, then they should sell it to consumers on its advantages.

    Why would you try to conceal GMO products from the consumer? It's confirmation that the makers of GMO products have something to hide!

    1. Re:Why conceal it? by MadCat221 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the same reason that people find it a bad idea to self-identify as "liberal" or "socialist". Reactionary types have poisoned the word in the popular vernacular.

    2. Re:Why conceal it? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They aren't concealing anything. Food manufacturers already make it a point to label it non-GMO if it isn't, because they know that people who follow the food religion will prefer it, even if it means paying more. The same applies to kosher and halal labels.

      Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize. It is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero sieverts, but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.

      This is the same plan as those wanting GMO labeling, not to mention that fighting GMO food is dumb and even counterproductive from an environmental perspective.

    3. Re:Why conceal it? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize. It is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero sieverts, but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.

      Regardless, if you'd rather pull the product than relabel it then you know in advance that your product can't survive with an accurate label. People are stupid, but tough - that's just the way the market is.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    4. Re:Why conceal it? by imidan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm conflicted over this. I agree that the label is intended to stigmatize. But I can't quite see that we shouldn't have them. The people who want the label to be there want it because it's scary sounding and they hope it will dissuade people from buying food that contains GMOs. And those people want to undermine the GMO food industry for a lot of stupid, superstitious, bullshit reasons.

      But I do have objections to GMO food. My objections revolve mainly around two things: intellectual property rights and monocultures. I don't think it's a good strategy for our species for corporations to "own" and "license" the right to plant certain seeds. Also, agricultural monocultures can open us up to harm when some plant pest, pathogen, or disease latches on to the monoculture and potentially causes crop failure because our crops are all genetically identical. (The latter problem is possible without GMOs, but is enhanced by GMOs.)

      The labels are factual, but when people are dissuaded from buying GMO foods because of the label, they're just buying in to a superstition that GMOs are bad. The people advocating for labels are doing it for the wrong reasons, but I do think we need to put some real thought into how we incorporate GMO foods into our food supply. I'd just rather we did it for the right reasons, because the way we're going now, we're having the wrong conversations about the dangers of GMOs.

    5. Re:Why conceal it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might be surprised to learn that "socialism" is not a dirty word in most of the first world. There are many political parties across the globe that use terms like "social" and "liberal" in their names with no shame... including Germany, the very nation depicted in your picture. I think it's entirely fair to say that American media bears at least some responsibility for that particular stigma's continued existence at home.

    6. Re:Why conceal it? by cowdung · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't believe the dangers of GMOs are from a health standpoint.

      The main danger of GMOs is the social effect on small farmers being forced out of the business by companies like Monsanto. This is a real problem that affects farmers in many many countries where IP law is being used to bully the small guy into paying the big multi-national or go out of business.

      But again its not so much the technologies, but the legal framework around it that is causing this problem.

    7. Re:Why conceal it? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree actually that the anti-GMO arguments are pretty stupid. But people have the right to eat what they want to eat, be it non-GMO, organic, fair trade, kosher, vegan, ovo/lacto vegetarian, gluten free, paleo, soylent, or whatever the next diet fad that comes down the pipeline will be. And it's a dick move to try to talk, trick, or coerce people into eating something they don't want to eat. Yeah, some of proselytism by people about their diets can be obnoxious. But that's no reason to withhold information about their food in order to trick them into breaking said diet. And if you think the GMO-free ones are the worst, I suspect you've not encountered many vegans or paleos.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:Why conceal it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Manufacturers are already required to display all sorts of things they would rather not, including caloric content, nutritional value if any, and actual ingredients used to assemble the product, some of which may resemble food. This is a step in the right direction and manufacturers who don't want the public to know what they're consuming can stand next to tobacco manufacturers who didn't want the public to know that tobacco products were lethal and lied to the public when questioned. In fact, the food manufacturers can probably thank the tobacco industry for this label now.

      Captcha: Impostor. I'm not the real AC, I'm an impostor.

    9. Re:Why conceal it? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice illustration how word poisoning works. For you, "socialist" is a nasty word. For me, here in Europe, we have had a socialist party in our government for the better parts of the latter 20 century, and we have reached a prosperity level that most of the world, and I dare say including the US, envy us for. So someone calling himself "socialist" isn't that big a deal here.

      I needn't hit books to see that. I need to open my window.

      He would, by the way, be the absolute polar opposite of a "liberal" for the average European. Also due to our political history, where the liberals are usually found at the right edge of the political spectrum.

      A "conservative" here is more a centrist than a right wing nutjob. If you're looking for poisoned words in the political arena here, I guess you have to reach for "nationalist". That well has been utterly poisoned for good, I think. But I guess that's what starting the bloodiest war in the history of mankind would do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Why conceal it? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you high?

      Do you REALLY need an explanation why it might not be in the consumer's interest, if not outright dangerous, if the manufacturer gets to state what he wants to say about the product and what he does not?

      If so, just think back a few years and what we learned since about cheap Chinese child toys.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Why conceal it? by sonamchauhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, we can't - its a balance. Giving consumers the ability to choose what they eat outweighs the 'freedom' the manufacturer has to display what they want.

    12. Re:Why conceal it? by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, the left wing media did us all a massive disservice demonizing a war that amounted to sending non-voluntary soldiers to a war meant to suppress a government that our government knew would most definitely win a democratic election (the reason that both the French and then US wouldn't allow elections in the country). In fact, we have a good sized record of disrupting legitimately elected governments because they we inconvenient for us. "Socialist" governments are most definitely not the only form of governance that has served to oppress people.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    13. Re:Why conceal it? by slashping · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...so it's okay if manufacturers lie just a little bit?

      No.

      how are the people who do not want GMOs in their foods supposed to have their voices heard in the "free market" if they can't tell what foods contain GMOs?

      That's quite obvious. Any producer is free to include a label that says "GMO free", and sell his products for a premium.

    14. Re:Why conceal it? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite the opposite.

      A free market according to its model requires one thing that does not exist in our reality: A consumer with total information available to him. And while this is impossible, we can still try our best to get to it as close as we possibly can. Because that's what the market model demands.

      Only an informed consumer who knows every aspect of the product could possibly choose the "best" product. Only then could he even come close to having the function that the free market requires from him: Determine the product that fits his needs best, choose this product, reward the producer making it and punishing those who fail to do so.

      This would be what a FREE MARKET requires and demands! Without this, there is no free market. Unfortunately, whenever someone start blaring "free market", the very last thing he has in mind is such a model market. What he has in mind is a dumb customer who will buy whatever shit you feed him. Either you then get to hear that a customer "could try to get that information on his own if he really wants to" or even the completely bogus shit that there is no need to inform that customer or that he has no right to any kind of information altogether.

      That is bullshit. Because then he CANNOT perform his function in the free market system. The consumer does not only have the right to be informed, he MUST be informed, whether he likes it or not, to perform his elementary function in the system! And that's independent of any health hazards or whatever else you could think of. The question the free market asks is not whether it is good for someone, the question is whether he wants it.

      So no, free market and labeling legislation are not contradicting. They're pretty much a requirement.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Why conceal it? by slashping · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Manufacturers are already required to display all sorts of things they would rather not, including caloric content, nutritional value if any, and actual ingredients used to assemble the product

      And as soon as you can show that GMO food affects consumer health, like the caloric content does, then we should have a warning for GMO as well.

    16. Re:Why conceal it? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You clearly don't work in medicine, healthcare, the pharma industry, or even understand how drugs work. I also suspect that you've had very basic instruction in biology. I get tired of hearing "pharma companies only make drugs that address symptoms so they can keep selling you drugs." I think you are conflating "disease treatment" and "cure". Most drugs are disease treatments, since permanent cures are not possible (at this time) for the vast majority of diseases. But, e.g., there were recent market approvals of 3 actual cures for hepatitis C.

      Drugs are developed to have a mechanism of action that directly addresses underlying disease. When it costs in excess of $1 billion and 10 years to bring a drug to market, you don't waste time on something that you have no idea how it works. Never mind that FDA and every other health regulatory agency in the world frowns upon pharma companies saying "we have no idea how it works, but it does, so just approve it." You make sure you are targeting the molecular and cellular causes of the disease. The drugs drastically reduce the severity of the disease. This manifests in a reduction in symptoms. The average person sees it as "the drugs only treat symptoms, I still have the disease", but what is actually happening is the drug is treating the disease and reducing its severity and a reduction or disappearance of symptoms is really just a side effect of treating the disease.

      TL;DR: "Treatment" and "cure" are not the same, and "cure" is often not possible at this time. So should pharma companies not bother?

  2. Re:truly free markets require full information by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.

    No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)

  3. "To Its Knees" is right... by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As A Vermonter I love to see these stories. VT is increasingly a playground for the rich and those subsumed with WLG* to support the cause du jour.

    Hate fracking? Vermont BANNED it in a very public legislative effort. (Even though Vermont will never have fracking due to geologic conditions in the state.) But of course the Illuminati who run the state strongly support a new, natural gas pipeline that will transport fracked NG to the most "sustainable" of towns.

    Hate litter? We are all becoming professional garbage managers due to legislatively micro-managed trash laws. (Meanwhile, Keurig/Green Mountain Coffee STILL dumps millions of plastic, unrecyclable single-use K-cups into the environment.

    The local "food co-op" broadcasts BUY LOCAL then sells grossly overpriced Yuppie-chow imported from California.

    I can go on but you get the point. Do as I say - not as I do.

    *White Liberal Guilt