Home | About | Donate

Consumers Want GMO Labels, Not Barcodes


#1

Consumers Want GMO Labels, Not Barcodes

Katherine Paul

On Wednesday last week, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack once again floated the idea of consumers using barcodes to identify foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as an alternative to requiring food manufacturers to put a label on products that contain GMOs.


#2

For me the question of whether GMO foods are "safe for consumption" is not the issue. The right to know what is in my food is the issue. As is country of origin, as is which giant food conglomerate is the umbrella organization on that spiffy packaging. Like many here (hopefully) we (my family) purchase very few prepared foods, opting for whole foods that we prepare to our own level of low or no salt, and likewise sugar.

I object to GMO's because I object to the philosophy, direction, and tactics of the industrialized agricultural industry, and if I can avoid their products and derivatives I'll do so. That is what they are trying to squelch - informed choice. Hiding behind bar codes, is well, simply hiding. In a similar fashion supermarket retailers have devised all sorts of required price labeling dodges to make it increasingly difficult to do simple on-the-spot price comparisons of products placed side-by-side on the shelves.

Ya gotta love the economy of scale of too big to regulate capitalism. If nothing else it has exposed the completely unscrupulous nature of marketing.


#5

It is very hard to explain nature to those who live in monkey hives... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJM4EBuL82o)


#6

You don't need to scan Vilsack's barcode to know what's in the product he's promoting, do you?


#7

Vilsack can stick his smart phone where the sun don't shine. I don't have a smart phone, don't want one, don't want to borrow one to do my shopping. Just label the GMO's already!


#8

Excellent article! This quote, one of several deserves repeating:

"The paid shills for the petroleum industry undermined a growing consensus on climate change that was inconvenient for industry, backed by a well-funded PR campaign sowing doubt about that scientific consensus. In this case, the biotechnology industry and its allies are declaring a consensus where there is none in order to silence their critics."

Note the "with or against us" use of either-or frames that works this Frank Luntz style talking point.


#9

... and the unscrupulous, unchecked, and rabid marketing of nature.


#10

Again with the that impossible and FALSE WE premise--that takes what corporate agricultural entities force into place through their financial, political, and PR controls--and alleges this is the way, will, and desire of the masses.

There are MILLIONS of (mostly women) peasant farmers who work WITH the soil; and there are millions of Indigenous peoples who work WITH nature.

The white male dominator model is HIS. It does not belong to all, it does not fit all persons, and it's ridiculous to push memes of this nature.