GMO labeling supporters fined $320K over campaign disclosure

[Deleted]

Not sure why people advocating for GMO labeling are considered anti-GMO... They are only asking for labeling, not for banning/restricting GMOs.

Companies and people advocating for GMOs know that a large part of people won't buy the products anymore if people get to know what they are buying. So better hide it.

[Gestopft]

As opposed to the Pro-GMO group based in Washington DC, that spent $11 million dollars trying to influence the vote. Then got fined $18 million for trying to conceal where the $11 million came from.

I know all the cool kids like to always say "buh both sides are bad"... we're not even getting that now.


I mean growing non GMO crops seems like harder work. It seems rational that that non-GMO growers want to distinguish their product.

You might be confusing me with someone else. My only point in that post was that cross-state lobbying and legislation is a thing. I then made up an example off the top of my head for why an Iowa group would support a Washington law, but wasn't passing judgment per se.

- - - Updated - - -

Denying a label adds credibility to the unfounded notion that GMOs are better.

How so? Who is denying a label? If companies want to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO, they can do that. Nobody is trying to stop that. Also- who, exactly, is pushing the narrative that GMO's are better for you? Anybody?

They don´t have higher yield per acre, so how are they a very promising science that will in all likelihood be vital to feeding the world?

Recent meta-analysis suggests they actually do, especially in developing countries. Most GMO crops right now are bred for resistance, not yield though. Before modern GMO tech, Norman Borlaug used genetic cross-breeding to greatly increase yield of wheat in many countries all over the world- as the technology improves we could certainly build on his successes. Also, the value of the technology in the future isn't limited to yield per acre- the ability to grow crops in areas where they would otherwise struggle could be a huge potential benefit moving forward.

[Zyster]

Why should GMO labeling be required tho? There is no evidence that it's harmful; there's boat loads of evidence on the contrary. So what's special about GMO products that they should require a label? Until there is clear evidence that it could be harmful (which there will never be because there's already decades of data), then it shouldn't require a label specifying that.

If people really want to know more about the product they can research the brand on the internet.

I wouldn't say boat loads. You are correct in that there is no real evidence, just fallacies in that X thing is happening and Y thing is GMO therefore it must be because Y thing. However, what you say is boat loads to suggest otherwise is actually the extra benefits that a GMO product can provide. Nothing really to do with the side effects. For example, they can take a bunch of products that provide different vitamins and put them all essentially into one thing. This is an obvious benefit not only for the consumer in general, but to be more cost effective. This does not indicate though that there is no harm. There just has never been any significant data to suggest that it is harmful.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw the potential harms that people suggest are from GMO aren't instantaneous and could even now take a while longer before data could suggest that something GMO is what resulted in whatever issue is being faced. Were at a stage that is almost similar to microwaving something then waking up sick and blaming it on the microwave. It doesn't quite work like that. This is probably another reason why labeling is so crucial. It allows the consumer to choose based off their own understanding.

[Mayhem]

Not sure how often you walk into a grocery store, but it would be much easier to label everything that was "non-GMO" than it would be everything that is GMO. And shit loads of products already have a "non-gmo" label added to the box by either the manufacturers or the grocery store itself to appeal to people with limited knowledge of the subject.

Not from the US, so it´s actually the other way around here, but sure if the non-gmo label would be easier then do that, i don´t see much of a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

Recent meta-analysis suggests they actually do, especially in developing countries. Most GMO crops right now are bred for resistance, not yield though. Before modern GMO tech, Norman Borlaug used genetic cross-breeding to greatly increase yield of wheat in many countries all over the world- as the technology improves we could certainly build on his successes. Also, the value of the technology in the future isn't limited to yield per acre- the ability to grow crops in areas where they would otherwise struggle could be a huge potential benefit moving forward.

Agreed, however this isn´t about third world countries now is it?

[Daerio]

Companies and people advocating for GMOs know that a large part of people won't buy the products anymore if people get to know what they are buying. So better hide it.

Keeping the consumer ignorant is in the producer's best interest. So you see the ignorance bleeding through here.

Empowering the consumer and individual freedom should be the only goal of government. When government and corporate interests converge, everybody gets fucked. That's what we're seeing here.

[Docturphil]

For the sole reason of providing 1st hand information to the customer.
Just how often do you go to a shop, see something you may be interested in, pull out your phone and google it?
Like i said in the quoted post:
The reason might be misguided, but information needs to be provided without additional work.

Another matter: Do you really belive what you read on the internet? In a lot of cases the internet is a bad source.


Indeed. People just want to know what they are buying without having to go trough the hoops of researching the whole thing and filtering data on how likely it is to be true; which can be very difficult with the internet.

But why should it be required? IMO, leave it up to the company if they want to label it or not.

I always consider the source when I'm getting info off the internet. Wikipedia is pretty much 99% reliable for example. Sure you might get on a page just after someone vandalizes it but the mods are pretty good about that stuff. The internet may be a good place to find unreliable information. It's also the best place to find reliable information.

[ComputerNerd]

GMO shit should be labeled

Then label everything that humans have manipulated through the less controlled selective breeding.
Oh wait, just label everything then.

It is just an arbitrary and completely ignorant distinction that GMO is bad simply because it is GMO.
It is simply a modern approach to something we absolutely have been doing for at least hundreds if not thousands of years already.
Before success was measured by the transfer of the desired traits, not by if there were any others transferred in the process.

[Garnier Fructis]

Not necessarily true, Non-GMO is a brand and sells as such, its a market people tap into. The politics surrounding it is ridiculous yeah but Non-GMO isnt universally bad.

I wasn't really clear. There's nothing wrong with their product. I was talking about their politics.

I drink 'organic' milk because it bizarrely happens to be the cheapest where I am.