Pro GMO people continue to say there is no scientific evidence that GMO foods are harmful, and there really arent any long term studies that say it is safe.

SInce it is so safe, label the foods GMO and be done with it, end of argument. Consumers win, all consumers win.

However, that’s only part of the argument. I believe consumers have a right to know about the process not just the end result. There are many other reasons why people might choose to avoid GM. To name just a few:
- Concern over the patenting of seeds and the tactics used to enforce those patents.
- Concern over overuse of pesticides (many GM varieties are designed to be pesticide (esp herbicide) resistant).
- Concern over the seeds escaping and contaminating nearby the fields of other farmers (who may then be sued for patent infringement or in some cases, lose their organic certification).
- Concern over the seeds escaping into the wild.
You may not agree with these concerns but I think consumers have a right to know and to make up their own minds.

The precedent in law already exists. A factory in China and a factory in California may be able to produce an identical t-shirt, but one will be labeled ‘Made in China’ and the other ‘Made in the USA’. Why? It’s not because the t-shirt is different. It’s because consumers have a right to know about the process as well.

However, I understand that my choice to avoid animal gelatin is not based on science – there are no health dangers associated with animal gelatin. Any prospective “vegetarian” labels on food products would only be appropriate if voluntary.

I have no basis on which to demand a “vegetarian” label from the USDA or FDA or any other government agency. I do have a right to ask food companies through petitions, letters, etc. to include such a label on their products. Each company should have a right to decide whether or not they wish to provide such a label, whether or not they find the potential benefit to their customers to be worth the increased cost in research, label redesign, etc.

Labels that say “GM” or “non-GM” should be voluntary for the same reasons.

That’s fine with me, I don’t mind if people want to organize themselves, create their rules, do their testing and certification, and put an organic religion sticker on foods.

But I see no reason for the government to have to do that. I would really rather see Feds put their energy and resources into testing and certifying actual scientific based content issues.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/op_poll_labeling.html
“Many consumers desire information on food labels about how foods and their ingredients were produced. A strong majority wanted foods containing GE ingredients to be labeled, 62% in one question (Question #2) and 70% in another (Question #3). To put those response rates in a larger context, the survey asked about the labeling of other technologies. Seventy six percent of consumers wanted labeling for crops grown using pesticides (Question #3), 65% for crops grown using plant hormones (Question #3), and 56% for crops that were imported (Question #2). Remarkably, 40% of respondents said that they would like products containing cross-bred corn to be labeled (Question #3).”

Given four choices for their highest food priority, one of which being GE food labeling, and another being pesticide residue labeling, only 17% of respondents chose GE labels, while 31% chose pesticides.

This is backed up by studies done on actual purchasing behaviors – when given the choice between genetic engineering and pesticides, two studies done on sweet corn in Canada and California, and a study done on fruit in the EU all agree that people choose the GE option over the pesticide option.

Why aren’t there people campaigning to have pesticides all labeled on food and food products, when the majority of consumers have expressed a desire to know that information about the food they eat? Personally, I would like to know if the food I eat comes from a farm that used conservation tillage, no tillage, and/or integrated pest management. But the cost of implementing such a system would be too much right now unless it could be made more cost-effective.

Since then, I know of other polls that show higher percentages (87%) for those who want labeling for GE crops. But as the 2001 poll (and other conducted elsewhere, such as when Oregon was considering a ban on GE crops) have shown that most consumers are not willing to pay anything more than $10 per year out of their food budget to have these labels. Only 28% of consumers polled would be willing to pay 0.9% more for their food (~$50 per year) to have these labels. Even amongst the 17% of people who placed GE labels as a high priority, still 50% of them indicated that they would not be willing to pay more than $10 per year for those labels.

Doesn’t it make more sense for the few people that are willing to pay more for GE/non-GE labels, that they should shoulder the cost in niche markets, such as Whole Foods?

So while polls continue to show that people want more information on foods and food products, that information comes at a cost, and most consumers are not willing to pay more to have that information. I believe it is both an issue of science and of consumer choice. In particular, when you look at the science ON consumer choice it indicates a more complex set of desires that don’t necessarily support a simple “GE” label. (one UK study noted that it did not affect purchasing behavior noticably.) For the record, I’m not an opponent of labeling per se.

Am I to understand that if the majority of consumers wanted foods labeled by the other techniques I listed, that you would support those labels?