No, "contains chemicals" doesn't tell me what's in the food.
And now you see why "contains gmo" is a bad label.
In every example you've given, there are valid reasons behind wanting to buy something. There's no other product where we pick an arbitrary component (that some people find scary) and label it with that - especially when that component is meaningless for making a decision.
And I do know people don't care if foods are GMO because they can't name any valid reason for it other than it's labeled GMO. It's like if people didn't want food in red boxes.
As I said earlier - give people ALL the information - give them the exact species of the food they are eating. Telling them "GMO" does not give them information.
Would you be behind a movement to label all foods that contain "Chemicals" with a label that says "Contains Chemicals"?
What about a "Contains poison" label for anything that contains anything that is poisonous given enough of it?
It's not GMO-free food (or I guess food with GMOs) that people want, it's the labeling. Since consumers can see what foods are labeled with, they have the information to make a buying decision.
On the other hand, if you're saying we need to pass regulations to label everything that a few outspoken, science-illiterate, talk show hosts and bloggers say we need to be afraid of, then that's where we have a problem.
It's not like a label "Contains Asbestos" that would signify a clear ingredient with a clear health disadvantage. Putting "GMO" on food would just confuse people even more since they won't know what sort of GMO is in it. It could be one that makes the food less healthy or it could be one that helps stop cancer.
Forcing food to be labeled by the FDA should only be done if there's a scientific reason to do so.
The issue isn't that people want to know about what's in their food - the issue is a few nut jobs want to scare people into thinking there's a problem they need to worry about by using terms they don't understand.
As a compromise, why not put the exact species of all foods on the label? If food is made with natural strain CQ94F corn then put that, If it's made with GMO strain CQ94G corn, put that. People that ACTUALLY care can research which strain they like best, while other will continue buying what they normally do. That's much better than the blanket "GMO" label that doesn't say anything useful about the nutrition or quality of the food.
You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
And creatures are still evolving. We've seen new pests that are immune to the roundup crops.
Given the right mutations plants could also naturally contain "Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA" (though that's like saying my smartphone shares code with my computer because they both support an API).
No, labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with the name of the author, name of the publisher and copyright date.
And calling them something that sounds scary to the ignorant, while at the same time leaving out other information that could be relevant. In food, it may be useful to know what pesticides are used or even what species a plant is. Have you ever seen corn labeled any more specifically than "Corn"? There are lots of varieties of corn (GMO and not) that are out there with different nutritional attributes, but we don't label that.
a = a * 2
Now, getting past the substitute of * for X as an indicator of a multiplication operation, most CS-types will interpret this as a command to double the value of a while a math-type would instead view this as a statement of fact (within the scope of the problem) and infer from this (probably without even thinking about it) that a is zero because no other value satisfies the formula.
Now I wouldn't identify as a "math-type", but I'm pretty sure we could infer a = 1 as an alternative to a = 0