Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surprisingly I'm not in favor of this. Labels, signs, info, blablabla have become environmental pollution and nobody pays attention anymore and it's BS for the most part. It reminds me of that old song "Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs, fracking up the scenery, breakin' my mind. Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign".
But then "genetically engineered" are not words that scare me.
I read labels. We have the right to know what's in the food we feed our children. No one is forcing you to read. If genetically modified foods are not bad, why are the producers trying to hide their ingredients??
If genetically modified foods are not bad, why are the producers trying to hide their ingredients??
Because it's a big scary word, and people aren't going to bother educating themselves on what it really means. I'm a liberal, but I'm against this. The scientific evidence is not there that GMO foods are dangerous... if it's not dangerous, why put labeling out there that has the connotation that it is dangerous.
Because it's a big scary word, and people aren't going to bother educating themselves on what it really means. I'm a liberal, but I'm against this. The scientific evidence is not there that GMO foods are dangerous... if it's not dangerous, why put labeling out there that has the connotation that it is dangerous.
The label will not say it's dangerous. That's up to you to decide. You have the freedom to ignore it. Juice drinks have the percentage of juice in a drink, are you implying that juice is bad for you?
Because it's a big scary word, and people aren't going to bother educating themselves on what it really means. I'm a liberal, but I'm against this. The scientific evidence is not there that GMO foods are dangerous... if it's not dangerous, why put labeling out there that has the connotation that it is dangerous.
Exactly--twelve times over. These remarks remind me of a certain anti-science crowd that exists on the other-side-of-the-isle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frugality
The label will not say it's dangerous. That's up to you to decide. You have the freedom to ignore it. Juice drinks have the percentage of juice in a drink, are you implying that juice is bad for you?
The organics movement has had a targeted ad campaign, and have had for years, against GM food and technology. Anyone walking through a store and sees "Gluten-Free" might think gluten is bad for you. Putting something like "GMO-Free" would make people think GM foods are bad for you.
There is nothing wrong with GM foods. Nothing wrong with organic foods, and pushing for means to scare people away from GM foods is irresponsible. GM foods do not pose the same health-risks that food ingredients do, which is why you can make a health-and-safety case for ingredient lists, but not for GM labeling.
Exactly--twelve times over. These remarks remind me of a certain anti-science crowd that exists on the other-side-of-the-isle.
The organics movement has had a targeted ad campaign, and have had for years, against GM food and technology. Anyone walking through a store and sees "Gluten-Free" might think gluten is bad for you. Putting something like "GMO-Free" would make people think GM foods are bad for you.
There is nothing wrong with GM foods. Nothing wrong with organic foods, and pushing for means to scare people away from GM foods is irresponsible. GM foods do not pose the same health-risks that food ingredients do, which is why you can make a health-and-safety case for ingredient lists, but not for GM labeling.
If there is nothing wrong with GMO's why don't you want people to know foods contain them?? Propostion 37 doesn't ban GMO's, all it does is require labeling. Even my wool coat tells me the contents of my coat. I bet your shirt tells you whether it's cotton or polyester
I'm saying that the phrase "genetically modified" has the connotation of "dangerous" for your average consumer... words "juice" or the "%" symbol do not have the same negative connotation. The scientific data is not there to show it's dangerous, so why put something on the label that will imply it?
For those that care about GMO foods, buy something with the label "no GMO's" and assume anything that doesn't have that on it, contains GMO's. If the public demand for non-GMO products is there, then companies would be jumping at the chance to put "non-GMO" on there, just like they do with "organic".
Because it's a big scary word, and people aren't going to bother educating themselves on what it really means. I'm a liberal, but I'm against this. The scientific evidence is not there that GMO foods are dangerous... if it's not dangerous, why put labeling out there that has the connotation that it is dangerous.
Dear Lost,
You're, um..... mistaken
I don't think you've educated yourself either (there IS evidence - dead rats, etc)
I don't think you're a liberal, either
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
