More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda.
Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?
More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of ot…
You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security.
The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of competitors behind them, too. Almost every single thing I read that's negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the truth is too distorted. Honestly, so much negative…
I think it's a combination of things: 1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. 2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way 3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange. 4- self-reinforcing bad information That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.
To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
I would like to require companies to provide a list of pesticides/fertilizers used, as well as what cultivar they are growing. Simply labeling GMO/non-GMO is not useful. It describes a process rather than an effect. It's like requiring people to label non-grafted plants.
Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
Before labeling: "Why wouldn't you label it? More information is better!"
After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"