Vermont about to pass GMO-labeling bill

What I said about cigarettes had a context -- I said that in 1920 someone could have said with a straight face that science didn't support concern about cigarettes.

We have no idea whether GMOs are harmful or not -- how can we? The first genetically modified foods began to appear in the 1980s. There have been no independent, long-term studies that can quantify much of anything about their impact definitively, and there are such a wide variety of genetically altered foods at this point, that you can't paint all genetically engineered foods with one brush.

I PERSONALLY don't really want to be a guinea pig in what I think is an ongoing experiment on the general population. I PERSONALLY do my best to limit the GMO foods I eat. I know I am a minority when it comes to that. But to my point that ANYONE who wants to can question anything before they choose to buy it (without some presumption that people need to be selectively nannied whether they want it or not), I have personally e-mailed food manufacturers with questions that mattered to me about their products before I would buy them. It's not that difficult.

As for GMOs, they may or may not shave years off my life (I really have no way of knowing at this point; and neither does anyone else, no matter what they say), but at best, the majority of the genetic modifications being made to produce I eat messes with its natural nutritional makeup -- often in favor of longer shelf life (nutrients are what makes food spoil; the pests are after those nutrients) or larger crop yields or for aesthetic reasons (so the fruit looks rounder and more colorful).

And my sense is that isn't a good thing. That said, others don't really seem to care as much about this as I do. People could choose to question the food they buy and consume, IF it meant enough to them --and consumer behavior could even bring about selective labeling of various things if people voted with their purchasing power. That has happened before without the Vermont state legislature selectively and randomly getting into the food package labeling business.

In this case, all evidence says people really don't care. When packaged, processed foods that were made in laboratories are what dominates the supermarket, I don't know why anyone would be all that surprised that GMOs aren't a hot button issue for most people.

 

This is a bit circular.

If you REALLY care about the makeup of something, there is nothing forcing you to buy it unless you are satisfied about what is in it. That doesn't just apply to food. It applies to anything.

This is obviously something I care a bit about, right? The only difference between me and someone who doesn't care the way I do. ... is that it matters to me. So I have educated myself enough to know that I am not going to find an ear of corn that hasn't been genetically modified in the typical supermarket, for example. It would be an exercise in futility. I know that before I even go in. I know that if I want a non GM ear of corn, I have to specifically seek out someone selling it.

I know that when I buy a processed food in a box (aside from the concerns about eating processed foods) there is an 80 percent + chance it contains GMs. Let's say for some reason I would still buy that product if I was assured it had no GMs -- I don't have to buy it unless I can get verification that it is GMO free. It's not like this isn't on anyone else's radar screen. There are probably a dozen iPhone apps out there that you can use to find non GMO products, for example -- somehow those apps fed a demand without the Vermont state legislature's nannying. Or I could go home and e-mail the manufacturer first, and not buy unless I am satisfied.

In answer to your question about "saving people time," it's because when you get an arbitrary authority, such as the Vermont state legislature (or the FDA) mandating random things that THEY decided we all need to know for our own good, it comes at a cost. Compliance and enforcement is going to either be ignored, or it will be a cost nightmare -- and it will filter through to people by driving up their grocery bills. That is a tradeoff people (who by all evidence I see largely don't seem to care about GMOs), likely wouldn't have made on their own.

If people make these decisions on their own -- with their purchasing power -- it is not only less costly, but to the extent there is any cost, people have decided on their own (in the aggregate) that they are willing to pay a cost for information THEY want (not what a legislature decided they need to know).

Additionally, GMOs are just ONE thing that the inner-nanny in anyone who cares about these things could point out as "necessary" information for people. I mean, if we want to get at the things in the typical food box people SHOULD be concerned about, we are going to need to attach a book to every product -- not just a few words on a label that point out random things, such as GMOs.

Otherwise, they are nannying us arbitrarily. To really inform people, shouldn't the label explain to people exactly what the modification made in the lab was, so they can evaluate the genetic modifications on a case-by-case basis? Not all GMOs are the same. At this point, "contains GMOs" is about as useful as a label that says, "contains fruit, vegetables and meat." Aside from that, for the same reasons I care about GMOs, I am really concerned about mutagenisis. If we aren't being arbitrary about this, shouldn't we mandate the labeling of every product that contains any form of mutagenic crop, to save me time? Also, if this is about potential health concerns, I am interested about knowing about pesticides. Shouldn't every crop ingredient on the box come with some form of labeling that spells out what pesticides were used to grow it -- to save me time? What about food processing, which probably should cause more health concerns for most people than GMOs? Shouldn't I have something on the label that explains the process in the lab that went into creating that meal in the box? Since I care about that, shouldn't my state legislature save me time and mandate that labeling of the box?

I could go on and on. If we weren't just arbitrarily mandating labeling of selective concerns that people MIGHT have when it comes to their food products, it would be impossible to enforce compliance, and every box would have to come with an encyclopedia attached to it.

TeamBud has this right. If people care enough about this stuff, they can seek out non GMO products on their own at a cost they are willing to pay. And he's also right that when there is demand for something, there is incentive for people to supply it.

 

I am not arguing that anyone do anything. You are free to care as little or as much about anything you buy (not just food), and do as little or as much research as you want to allay any concerns YOU have. Ask whatever questions you want. What is important to me, may not be important to you. Again, why don't we compile every question everyone has about every product out there (GMOs aren't the only thing we can arbitrarily force labeling of) and mandate labeling to address all of those concerns? Every product can come accompanied by an encyclopedia.

No offense, that kind of attitude really rubs me wrong. What is "negligible" to you, may or may not be negligible to the next person. I am not trying to impose any costs on you based on my notions of what is negligible. Why would you do that to everyone else based on an edict you want to impose?

The cost actually may not be as negligible as you are assuming. On the labeling side, it may or may not be all that great (I really have no idea what the actual costs are), but if you owned a food processing plant with razor thin margins (as most of them have), you would probably consider the word negligible in a different way. It could be the difference between you being profitable and having to go out of business because someone has greater scale than you do. If it costs just one job to someone in a processing plant, should that person take solace somehow by the "negligible" cost created by some nebulous good you mandated?

Aside from that, the real cost of a random edict from above, actually has to do with enforcement. These arbitrary regulations rarely come along with allocation of the millions it would cost to enforce them. To the extent then do, it is super costly. FDA labels, for example, are a joke. People believe the calorie counts on them -- you "informed" them -- when in reality when you take the typical frozen food product into a lab, it is off by about 10 percent on just that one bit of mandated misinformation that people believe.

With GMOs, it is a regulatory nightmare. It would be super costly to ensure compliance.