If you're saying it's a market decision, then the market will work it out, right?

Markets are only efficient when all the parties have good information. And "markets" and "marketing" do not refer to the same thing.

Withholding a specific bit of information that consumers say they want is a sure way to make sure "the market" won't function efficiently.

Do you understand?

It's not like a label "Contains Asbestos" that would signify a clear ingredient with a clear health disadvantage.

I already said that for me, it's not an issue of health. It's a simple consumer decision that includes whether or not I like a company or industry's business practices. In your brave new world, am I allowed to make a decision based on that information or not? Am I allowed to make consumer decisions based on whatever I want or must I stick to your prescribed set of approved parameters?

Putting "GMO" on food would just confuse people even more

Then it's an issue of marketing and consumer education. Not of science, There is no "scientific" reason to withhold a piece of information from a consumer. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it matters to upwards of 90% of consumers who are demanding GMO labeling (and over 65% of those people want those labels to be mandated by law).

When did you get appointed the steward of what information people are allowed or not allowed to have?

Does this mean that there will be an influx of unemployed Norwegians with deep voices?

My question is why you're trying to use a legal argument on a topic that should be decided on the scientific basis of the things;

No, no, no. It's not a legal argument, it's not a scientific argument, it's a consumer argument.

Consumers are the ones paying for the product and the label, and they overwhelmingly want to know if there are GMOs in them. If you and the chemical industry believe that GMOs are getting a bad rap, then that's a marketing issue. But strangely, instead of spending the money on marketing, they're spending the money on doing everything they can to keep people from finding out the ineluctable fact that there are GMOs in their food.

GMOs are not the first product that consumers have been skeptical of. But they're the first ones that the industry decided the solution was not better marketing, but rather obfuscation, misdirection and hiding the provenance of their product. Don't you think that's an interesting development?

Mandatory labeling of GMO's is not realy different to what happened during the second world war, when Jews were forced to wear a yellow hand band.

Mister Godwin, I see you raising your hand there in the back. Do you have something to add?

Should we label every scary thing in the future?

You're not paying attention. GMOs should be labeled not because they're scary, but because consumers want to know.

Consumers are the ones paying for every bit of research, every step in the production process. They're the ones paying for the lawyers, they're the ones paying for the lobbyists and they're the ones paying for the labels that are put on the product.

Do you get that? GMOs should be labeled because the people who are paying for them want them to be labeled. Why is that so hard for the waves of GMO supporters who mobilize whenever there is this discussion to understand?

That's the question of a chemical designed to have a pharmacological effect that they didn't know how to properly test at the time.

Oh, I see. That was back when Science didn't know what they were doing, unlike today, when Science never errs (except the thousands of pharmaceutical products that have been taken off the market within a few years of studies showing they were completely safe).

So tell me, what was the year when Science figured everything out?

There is nowhere "Listen and Believe" is used more than in the argument over GMOs.

Why should that info be stamped on a food package?

Because the consumers, the ones paying for every single bit of the stuff overwhelmingly want to know.

I cannot think of a better reason.

Every single poll taken has over 90% of consumers wanting GMOs to be labeled, and in every single poll consumers want GMOs to be required by law to be labeled.

The fact that state initiatives to this effect have lost is testament to the power of corporate money in elections.

So why would he bring race into this issue at all? What does race have to do with GMOs, except pure misdirection and obfuscation.

If your analogy to learning about how your food was grown is somebody's race, you are too far gone to participate in this discussion.

That has scary words like "Genetic" and "Organism" in it which people will be afraid of, same way they're afraid when you tell them their pie has "Chemicals" in it.

You are still describing a marketing issue. Not a scientific issue, but one of public perception.

So why hasn't the GMO industry spent the same amount of money teaching the public about the wonders of their shitty tasteless sweet corn and cardboard tomatoes to the public instead of the billions they spend trying to hide the fact of this foods provenance?

Remember, we're not talking about some natural resource like water or air, we're talking about a goddamn consumer product. Nothing more. Not the cure for cancer or world hunger or the common cold. We're talking about something that has a label and a price and sits on the shelf at the Piggly Wiggly. So, considering the fact that the consumers are the ones who are paying the ENTIRE bill for this stuff then why is the GMO industry so dead set against them knowing what they're buying?

And calling them something that sounds scary to the ignorant, while at the same time leaving out other information that could be relevant

If it "sounds scary to the ignorant" then isn't it just a matter of marketing?

Why do you think the chemical industry spends billions on keeping GMO labels off of food instead of using that money to market their "completely safe and delicious" genetically modified plants to consumers? Why are they so heavily invested in keeping a simple fact from their consumers instead of in teaching them how healthy they are for their kids?

There are thousands of things the consumer might want to know but they can't all possibly fit on the package.

And yet, there is one thing - one single bit of information - that the chemical industry has spent billions making sure never gets on that package.

I've got concerns about the corporate influence or the monoculture that GMOs create. But the health concerns are bogus.

I've already stated that the health concerns are not what's driving my opinion on GMOs.

What's the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food? The GMO food can potentially create a slightly different set of chemicals. We can assess it's safety the same way we assess the safety of any piece of food, look at what those chemicals are and see if any are dangerous.

Shall we have a little conversation about which chemicals "Science" has told us are completely safe? And especially the FDA? You really wanna go down that road with me?

http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-...

Or my personal favorite in the category of "Scientist who tells you something is completely safe but runs away when it comes near him":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

so, indeed, you're affirming the insult

you're telling me you see no distinction between science and business

why are there so many fucking morons in this world?

Even being above average means you're surrounded by (relative) idiots. Hell, just stay informed about world events, history, literature, and then stand there in disgust as all people can talk about is the latest episode of "Naked and Afraid". This is by no means a recent thing either; every generation throughout history has repeated the same sorry story.

Labeling should be about safety, not IP rights

Why? Every product I buy seems to have tons of label information about intellectual property rights. Why should food be any different?

Let me pick up some random item and see: OK, here's a package of DVD-Rs sitting on my desk. Let's see....one, two, three, four, five, six...I count six different indications of people claiming intellectual property rights over some aspect of the name, brand or technology involved in the production of these DVD-Rs. And I didn't even look at the fine print. And nothing on this label has any reference to or association with "safety".

It seems like the ONLY products that seek to hide their intellectual property claims are GMO foods. And that, my friend is suspicious.

Labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with 'Evolution is just a theory.'

No, labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with the name of the author, name of the publisher and copyright date.