how many times do I have to repeat GMO labels do not tell the consumer anything? It's not an allergen, it's not an ingredient (unless you think a few pieces of DNA or RNA constitute an ingredient), it's not a nutrition fact, it doesn't relate to quality or grade.
This is disingenuous. You don't have to care about what's on the label to realize what it tells the consumer. It's a different method of production.
It doesn't relate to vegans or religious reasons either.
You should care how strict GMO testing is and keeping it strict before it comes to market not little labels.
Prop 65 was loved by lawyers who wanted to make a quick buck.
http://m.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Prop-65-lawsuit-bill-helps-businesses-4876499.php
I'm with Chichikov on this. On the idea that it's a lifestyle choice, I don't see the problem with GMO labeling. Plenty of other countries already label (though I think banning is too far), and the idea that people shouldn't be able to seek out something relevant to this particular conflict, however dubious, is absurd. We can't preemptively shut down an otherwise harmless idea - a position you would seem to accept were it not for the fact that there is FUD out there about GMOs - because of fear of social backlash. I don't see a good argument for how varying degrees of aversion, some hypothetical and some not, preclude the ability for others to make their choice on the matter.
This country, like others, isn't going to suddenly lose its shit once GMO labels are out there. The NonGMO Project label is already found on Kettle Chips, for example. And even assuming we get labeling--then what? Are poor people going to deprive themselves of food? Buy "prohibitively costly" food or force themselves into starvation? If your concern is about price of labeling - then we should simply move toward a federal mandate on labeling. And I think the comment on paternalism was interesting--because under what scenario is it that GMO foods, which are for all intents and purposes safe, are going to become prohibitively costly? is everyone going to switch to non-gmo production? My impression is that prices for non-gmo production would stay the same or decline, if indeed the "bourgeois" movement to secure labeling has any teeth.
I think the urban caveman movement (it's also popular with libertarianism) is ridiculous but I don't think there's a reason to do anything about it. There are health risks like accepting loss of blood, as it simulates encountering danger in the wild, but I don't think legal restraint would be effective nor reasonable. I'm really skeptical of suggestions of less oversight, besides. You've heard about the recent "Monsanto Protection Act," right?
To be clear, yes, the vast majority of literature suggests GMO crops are safe to eat, there doesn't seem to be a specific harmful mutation of something out there.
By the way, what was your Prop 65 parallel suggesting? I don't see it.
Gay people can't vote republican? What if they're conservative.
One of these days the Log Cabin Republicans will pick up steam.
Or, see empty vessel's comment. =P
