The only reason for labeling nearly all our food as GMO is to imply its bad. Despite their being no reputable evidence showing this.A simple phrase such as "Contains at least one GMO" would be a rather simple thing to add to packaging, and it would provide the rather simple information that the food contained therein was made from at least one genetically modified ingredient. This would appease the tree-hugging, anti-science, ingorami (such as myself) with the desired information upon which we can base our own decisions about which items we want to purchase.
All of the brilliant people who perfectly comprehend the effects of all of the genetic modifications, in of all of the approved genetically modified foods, would still be at liberty to purchase all of their favorite foods, even with that piece of information listed on the packaging! The presence of the simple phrase on the package isn't going to give the food cooties, so it will still be perfectly safe (?) to eat! It's very exciting.. I know.
So instead how about we compromise and label GMO as
"Due to irrational liberal fear of science we must point out this food has been improved by people"
That way you can be happy that it is labeled. But it also makes clear that there is no evidence that GMO is harmful
So you are irrationally afraid?I am willing to pay more for food to be part of the Control Group. Willing and enthusiastic consumers of GMOs can then be part of the Test Group. We are, in that case, both getting what we want, without much more trouble to food producers than the keeping track of the origins of their ingredients and properly labeling their products.
Do you have any evidence of this?I don't think every genetic modification made to every food is going to result in a negative health effect. Rather, I do think it very likely that a few genetic modifications made to a few foods probably will have a negative health effect.. and that a minute few might turn out to have a serious, negative health effect.. as the companies profiting from patents on the newly created food genes might either be incapable of perfectly predicting the effects of their modifications (likely, I think), or unwilling to fully and objectively test the effects of their modifications (also likely, I think) because doing so would have a negative effect on profits. Furthermore, I have innate suspicion of the published results of a test which has been conducted by an entity whose profits will be affected by the findings (conflict of interest). Lastly, at least one of the companies, which is performing the genetic modifications, I trust no farther than I can see in the pitch black.
I am trying to come up with one good reason why we should label food as being GMO. Especially when that includes basically all foods.I'm trying to think of a (good) reason why such information should not be included on food packaging for the edification of interested parties. Does anyone have one? (Hint: The grave prediction of a possible increase in paranoia, and the horrifying possibility of orgasms over the results of safety tests don't even come close to qualifying.)
HINT: Liberal paranoia is not a good reason
HINT2: People have been tampering with food genetics for 1000s of years. Just because we have developed improved methods does not mean that food needs to start be labeled.