The only reason that people want GMO-containing products labeled is that people believe these products to be harmful. Mandatory labeling looks like an official endorsement of that view. This will misinform consumers.
> Sure it costs money to add labels...so what? If you don’t want to dish out the added costs don’t use gmos.
There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. More expensive food would hurt consumers whether or not they care about GMOs. This is a bad thing.
> As admitted by the lobbiest people don’t want gmos so the industry doesn’t want to have to label them. I’d recommend watching the televised congressional hearings.
Consider for a moment that I'm right and that GMO labeling would be bad for both consumers and producers. How would industry lobbyists act differently than they do now? Would it be any different from how they act now?
>The only reason that people want gmo products labeled...
That is false. Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos.
There are studies on the amounts of pesticides and weed killers on the foods you buy.
>There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone.
That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos. If they want to keep using gmos they can.
And people who don’t care can keep buying the cheaper gmo food.
But anyway you sound like the cigarette industry...labels would hurt business and consumers, yeah that’s right from their playbook. Nutrition labels and ingredients hurt consumers right from big ag’s Playbook.
I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind.
Edit: can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers? Cigarette warnings? Peanut allergy labels? Medication warning labels? Nutritional labels? Ingredient lists?
> Most people who want them labeled want to know because the amounts of pesticides and weed killers used on gmos.
So why aren't they asking for pesticide and weed killer labeling? This is not specific to GMOs and is not something that will apply universally to GMOs going forward.
> That’s disengenious. First your argued about label cost now you moved the goal posts to costs of not using gmos.
I didn't move the goal posts. You conceded the point that labeling increases the price of GMOs. I was responding to your argument that you can save that extra cost by not using GMOs by pointing out that this is even more expensive. GMO labeling will increase the price of food.
> I get it, any mandate on businesses, even if consumers want it, is wrong in your mind.
How did you get that? It's not true. I believe that many mandates are helpful. I'm in favor of current mandated nutrition labels on food.
> can you give a single example of labels that are bad for consumers?
Labels that are misleading are bad for consumers. Homeopathic medicine has labels that indicate it has ingredients that don't exist in the pills and labels that indicate effectiveness for conditions it has not been demonstrated to treat. This hurts consumers.
Food often has misleading non-mandated labels like saying an unhealthy snack is fat free to imply that it is healthy.
California's Prop 65 mandates labeling any thing or place that contain a known carcinogen. This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings about carcinogens.
Some states have mandated labels on biology textbooks stating that evolution is just a theory. This is a misleading statement designed to trick people into believing falsehoods.
Again, I'm not against all labeling. I'm just against labeling that misleads consumers. We need GMOs to make food cheaper and more nutritious and increase yields. GMO labeling is just a scare tactic to get people to buy more expensive products, and it comes at the expense of disadvantaged people and the environment.
>This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings about carcinogens.
Yes again one of the arguments from the cigarette industry.
Again in a free country the people are free to organize things as they see fit. And from a practical perspective I think you can understand why cigarettes have a more general warning rather than lists some measurement of all the know carcinogens which isn’t going to mean anything to your average consumer.
But again you are moving the goal posts because you’re now saying the labels are good, but they can be improved. That’s different than earlier positions of mandatory labels are authoritarian. but honestly listing measurements of carcinogens and expecting consumers to have an inherient understanding of those levels vis a vis scientific studies is ridiculous.
And to say gmo labels are a scare tactic that comes at a disadvantage to the environment is misinformed. Gmo based big ag is terrrible for farm land, and has already resulted in new mutations in weeds and pests that no longer respond to traditional pesticides and weed killers and are recking crops, not to mention damage to soil because gmo farms over utilize pesticides and weed killer chemicals compared to say organic farms or farms that do proper crop rotations.
Not sure how you can even say gmo labeling misleads consumers, since there are no studies on that and it’s never been done. All I know about it is consumers want it and lobbiests are blocking it on behalf of the gmo industry.
> I think you can understand why cigarettes have a more general warning rather than lists some measurement of all the know carcinogens which isn’t going to mean anything to your average consumer.
Prop 65 isn't about cigarette labeling. This labels anything in California that contains any amount of any known carcinogen. When I walk into a local shopping center, there is a sign saying that the place contains known carcinogens. This label is applied all over places and products across the state, regardless of whether there's a real danger. These labels are bad. They could be improved, but they're currently bad.
> That’s different than earlier positions of mandatory labels are authoritarian.
That is not and has never been my position. My position is that labels which have the effect of misinforming people are bad. I don't care who requires them. I am in favor of mandatory labels that have a net positive effect.
> Not sure how you can even say gmo labeling misleads consumers, since there are no studies on that and it’s never been done.
That's a fair point. We should have studies before mandating these labels so we can know whether they tend to mislead people.
> All I know about it is consumers want it and lobbiests are blocking it on behalf of the gmo industry.
You could say the same thing about labels on textbooks saying evolution is just a theory. There are lobbyists on both sides of this argument, and there are consumers that don't want it. Popular things are not always right, and lobbyists are not always wrong.
> Sure it costs money to add labels...so what? If you don’t want to dish out the added costs don’t use gmos.
There is also an added expense to not using GMOs, so this would make food more expensive for everyone. More expensive food would hurt consumers whether or not they care about GMOs. This is a bad thing.
> As admitted by the lobbiest people don’t want gmos so the industry doesn’t want to have to label them. I’d recommend watching the televised congressional hearings.
Consider for a moment that I'm right and that GMO labeling would be bad for both consumers and producers. How would industry lobbyists act differently than they do now? Would it be any different from how they act now?