Opinion of this image

[bedstuy]

If you don't support including GMO information in food labeling then you're not left-wing, as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, disagreement on a single issue means being cast out. Classy. 

Nobody gets to determine who's left wing or not, that's not how ideology works. I still think of myself and call myself left wing, if that bothers you, its your problem, not mine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you actually read what's being said, you'll see that people are saying the exact opposite of this, that anti-vaxxers are worse. 

So far, people on this board have determined Bernie Sanders: has issues with black people, wants to close the borders because he hates mexicans, and now apparently is anti-GMO. You can't just disagree with him, or take his statements for what they are, everything that comes out of his mouth (or in this case, his facebook page) must be indicative of the most cartoonishly stupid position possible.

Bernie Sanders is some old boring socialist activist/harmless hippy and some posters have actually called him "despicable." The hyperbole here drives me up a wall.

GMO labeling does not provide any relevant information to the consumer.  For the average consumer, a GMO label would only confuse them.  It implies that being genetically modified is dangerous or nutritionally relevant.  And, the absolute consensus of science says the opposite.

When a food label lists things like ingredients and nutritional information, it's all relevant.  The relevant information about food is nutritional information.  GMO labeling actually requires companies to put a bogus, misleading warning on their product.  It's unfair unless you have actual evidence. 

As for Bernie Sanders, I don't care that much about this issue.  But, here's what it means...

Bernie Sanders is a pandering, fallible politician who can be pressured into dumb positions by his supporters.  That makes him similar to all politicians.  Sanders just happens to pander to the left in American politics.  The left has their superstitions, stupid ideas and crazy nuts, just like the right and the center.  Sanders irresponsibly buys into the excesses of the left like Rubio irresponsibly buys into the excesses of the right and Clinton irresponsibly buys into the excesses of the center.  Granted, Sanders is not Dennis Kucinich, but he's not some amazing courageous truth teller.  He's a politician who happens to be on the extreme left wing of electoral politics.

[bedstuy]

Do you actually think there is no possible harm?

People might be improperly dissuaded from eating otherwise healthy food.  Think about the poor person who is ignorant of this issue and decides to do all their shopping at Whole Foods because of this labeling law.  There may be a disincentive to use GMO crops by producers.  And, you would think if the labeling demystified GMOs, companies would voluntarily label their food GMO.  They must have done research on that and found it would hurt their sales.  Maybe that goes away if everyone needs to label GMO, but it could be pretty unfair in some cases. 

And them what's the logic here?  If you're going to force people to label their products, shouldn't the burden be on you to provide a convincing reason?  Why not force all bottled water companies to label, "CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE"?  Couldn't hurt right?  But, some idiot is going to say, "ooh, I don' want water with chemicals in it, I'll buy some orange juice."

[bedstuy]

I'm sorry, I just can't truck with the argument of "If we give people more information, they might make decisions that hurt certain businesses. Better to keep them in the dark for their own good."

Have you glanced at many ingredients labels lately? At a random glance at box dinners, cakes mixes, cans of soup or vegetables, there's all sorts of terms completely lost on a layman that sounds nuts. It doesn't stop 99% of people from eating it. Most of anything in them is completely harmless and will almost never hurt a person's health. But we include that information because we believe consumers have a right to know what they're buying.

Refusing to tell people certain things are in their food only reinforces the perception that big business interests are trying to get one over on them. That it's something they have to hide. Start slapping an asterisk saying a product has been genetically modified on every other item in the produce section and people will move on with their lives, realizing that lettuce they've been eating since they were 9 hasn't made them grow a toe on their forehead, and they'll move on. Maybe some incredibly small portion of the public will adjust their buying habits, but that's their prerogative. It wouldn't "confuse" consumers anymore than what they already see is in the food they buy. What else should we hide? That there's titanium dioxide in pizza crusts?

They should list the ingredients and the nutritional information on food.  They shouldn't be forced to list anything else.  That's common sense. 

And, the fact is we already have GMO labeling in America.  Anything that is non-GMO tends to have a non-GMO certified seal.  That solves the informational problem without any government involvement.

Here's the other harm: 
Thousands and thousands of food labels would be changed for a spurious, useless reason.  That's very simple on a micro-level, yes.  But, for the entire food industry to find out whether they use GMO crops in their food and change their labels, it adds up.  When added to the potential cost of companies changing to more expensive non-GMO crops, it would be significant. 

We don't know the exact cost.  But, let's take a conservative guess from a pro-GMO labeling group.  They found it to be $2.30 per person per year.  319 million Americans X $2.3 = $734 million dollars.  That's a significant waste of money.

[bedstuy]

I'm shocked and disappointed my fellow republicans have a negative perspective on this. Parents absolutely have the right to know whether their family's food is mutated by man or whether they are eating fresh grown crops and such. Regardless of your views on the harmfulness of GMOs, they absolutely have a right.

A shame.

Everything in our diet is mutated by man, aside from wild game, fish and shellfish.  Right?

[bedstuy]

You people are being crazy.

There is no limit to what you could require on labels.  You require food labels to state where the food was grown, what fertilizers and pesticides were used, what the phase of the moon was when it was harvested.  And, some people might want to know that information.  It shouldn't be required unless it's relevant to the consumer. 

As I quoted before, this change would cost upwards of $700 million per year to adopt.  Also, that number is from the pro-GMO labeling crowd.  We could easily be talking about one billion dollars per year.  And, it would have no benefit whatsoever for consumers.  Not only that, non-GMO products already list that on their label!  So, people who want non-GMO food can just buy food with a non-GMO certified label, problem solved.  Why waste $700 million to solve a non-issue which, in fact, already has a solution?

[bedstuy]

You people are being crazy.

There is no limit to what you could require on labels.  You require food labels to state where the food was grown, what fertilizers and pesticides were used, what the phase of the moon was when it was harvested.  And, some people might want to know that information.  It shouldn't be required unless it's relevant to the consumer.  

As I quoted before, this change would cost upwards of $700 million per year to adopt.  Also, that number is from the pro-GMO labeling crowd.  We could easily be talking about one billion dollars per year.  And, it would have no benefit whatsoever for consumers.  Not only that, non-GMO products already list that on their label!  So, people who want non-GMO food can just buy food with a non-GMO certified label, problem solved.  Why waste $700 million to solve a non-issue which, in fact, already has a solution?

Sources, I cannot imagine it being $700 million for a simple relabeling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/06/would-gmo-labeling-requirement-cost-500-more-in-groceries-per-family-a-year/

It would not be simple at all.  Farmers would have to change how they store their crops and keep GMO and non-GMO crops segregated.  The entire farming system would have to change.  Farmers would have to carefully monitor whether they choose GMO or non-GMO.  They would have to segregate those crops.  Farmers costs would go up significantly.  Further down the chain, grain elevators would have to choose to store either GMO or non-GMO.  This would raise crops storage costs.  These costs would probably filter down the system too.

And, then there's the production end, you would have to change every food label.  Producers would have to research their supply chain and change their label if they ever use GMO crops.  They would not be able to use a mix of GMO and non-GMO and they would need compliance mechanisms to ensure that.  And, then you have compliance costs of regulators, lawyers, auditors, etc.  Honestly, one billion dollars per year seems like a low estimate to me.  If you look at the the high estimate from the WaPo article, it would be $159 billion per year.

[bedstuy]

I blame all those 90s movies where a corporation took science too far and it lead to an action movie.  That taught the public that we should fear science.

[bedstuy]

Why would labeling GMO status cost anymore than labeling sodium content? Just ad an extra line.

No.  It's way more than changing the label.  Food companies have an entire infrastructure to control the ingredients in their products.  They have no infrastructure to decide whether they use non-GMO or GMO corn in their products.  They would need to create that from scratch.

Farmers have no infrastructure to separate GMO and non-GMO crops.  They would need to do that or decide to exclusively grow GMO or non-GMO, even if that is otherwise a bad decision.  That would cost a ton of money.

Grain elevators would have to completely change their business and create a system of GMO and non-GMO grain elevators. 

And, everywhere else in the supply chain would have to adapt to that.  It's not a small change.

[bedstuy]

Why would labeling GMO status cost anymore than labeling sodium content? Just ad an extra line.

No.  It's way more than changing the label.  Food companies have an entire infrastructure to control the ingredients in their products.  They have no infrastructure to decide whether they use non-GMO or GMO corn in their products.  They would need to create that from scratch.

Farmers have no infrastructure to separate GMO and non-GMO crops.  They would need to do that or decide to exclusively grow GMO or non-GMO, even if that is otherwise a bad decision.  That would cost a ton of money.

Grain elevators would have to completely change their business and create a system of GMO and non-GMO grain elevators. 

And, everywhere else in the supply chain would have to adapt to that.  It's not a small change.

Or you could just have a third option: "May contained genetically modified ingredients"

How is that any better than just what people ought to do now, assume everything is GMO unless they know otherwise?