You nearly crashed our systems!
This Monday, we wrote about the proposed GMO label law and asked for your feedback. And you responded… with vigor.
One reader gave a good bird’s-eye view:
“What a great, succinct analysis of an impossible situation.
“As you pointed out, it is exactly like the government attempting to control other aspects of our diet. How much control should the government have in our choice to smoke cigarettes? Marijuana? Drink alcohol? Drink soda? Consume sugar (raw, refined, and HFCS)? Consume salt, fat, etc.? This list goes on and on. And typically, I’m against most forms of government control or intrusion. They inevitably screw it up and charge the taxpayers to do it. Which was exactly your point.
“That is, until you introduce Obamacare or any other form of socialized, government-monitored or -controlled, taxpayer-subsidized health care system. If the American public is going to be held responsible (expenses, resources, availability, etc.) for the health and maintenance of the general population and their habitual consumption of the poisons mentioned above — then shouldn’t some efforts be made to restrict such consumption… reduce health risks… reduce health care costs?
“It is a classic Catch-22. And we are F’d either way.
“Jeff B.”
Thanks Jeff. However, based on the feedback, it appears most of our readers have firmly decided where they stand:
You want them labeled. By law.
Here’s a sample of your responses:
“The government and its departments have the OBLIGATION to protect and inform the public… the citizens it serves.”
“Any food that is GMO or contains any GMO products should be labeled. The products should be independently tested to show what health hazards exist.”
“No one who works for or has worked for a company that produces GMO products should be involved in the decisions concerning labeling.”
“We think all foods that are grown with GMO seeds should be so labeled.”
“I wholeheartedly support requiring GMO labeling.”
“If a product is known to contain GMOs, it should be labeled.”
“GMO labeling should be mandated.”
“I am 100% for labeling food products GMO versus non-GMO.”
One insightful reader elaborates:
“Nate, it seems to me that to choose GMO labeling as the place to ‘draw the line’ on government regulation is the wrong place, wrong time. The labeling could be allowed to say ‘no GMO organisms have intentionally been used in this product’ to alleviate the confusion and legal mess coming from ‘unintentional pollination’ or other rather specious arguments against giving the consumer the right to know what is in their food. Over time, as consumers pick non-GMO foods over GMO foods, the likelihood of GMO cross-pollination would decrease as market demand for them decreases and, therefore, plantings of GMOs decrease. In this case, the health and safety of the consumer and their freedom of choice trumps the ‘danger’ of government regulation.
“S. F., paid-up subscriber.”
Et tu, S. F.?
I doubt anyone in our little circle here wants to eat GMOs. As one passionate reader put it:
“Who the HELL created these f***ing things, and why?”
Indeed.
The disagreement comes from how we want to avoid them. A public solution (government-mandated labeling laws) or a private solution (non-GMO labeling and third-party testing).
Actually, “disagreement” isn’t quite the right way to put it. The reality is much closer to: Just about everyone thinks I’m wrong.
If you read Monday’s email, you know where I stand. And anyone who’s ever met me in person can attest to my compulsion to beat a dead horse. So I’ll ask you one more question before we move on to something else:
Which do you trust more:
The power-hungry corporation that relies on your money for survival?
…or…
The power-hungry governmental authority that relies on your vote for survival?
Which one? Send in your answer (livingwelldaily@lfb.org), but then we’ve got to keep this Living Well train chugging forward. Plenty of other health topics (some exciting… some scary) to cover.
Nate Rifkin
Underground Health Researcher
P.S. I have to mention, at least someone from our legal department agrees with me:
“I’ll throw in my vote – third party testing and verification (like the Non-GMO project), but give tax breaks for companies that do this so it’s incentivized (I hear it’s terribly expensive to go through that process). :)”
Her excellent feedback didn’t surprise me – earlier at lunch she chewed me out for not having read Ayn Rand!
