From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 11:27:36 MDT
On Saturday, July 6, 2002, at 10:50 am, John K Clark wrote:
>> I don't see how proponents of the free market can
>> oppose labeling.
>
> We don't oppose labeling, put anything you like on your label, just
> don't
> tell me what I must put on mine. By the way, would you also be in favor
> of
> forcing people to put the astrological sign of the head of the company
> on
> the label too? It seems to me if you are for the one you should be for
> the
> other, after all, the average consumer almost certainly believes more
> strongly in the veracity of astrology than of genetics and so would be
> even
> more interested in it.
I don't see how astrology has anything to do with the food I am buying.
However, if I buy a can that is 100% full of GM corn, it seems
misleading to never mention it on the label. We already do have full
labeling requirements in the U.S. Food labels are supposed to show all
ingredients and a complete nutritional breakdown of what is in the
food. Leaving out GM products from the ingredient list seems to be
misleading, especially if the product is nothing but GM food.
As a compromise, how about if we at least require ingredient lists to
say whether they are "complete" and list all ingredients, or
"incomplete" and just list some ingredients that they want the customer
to know about. That way, consumers could tell if the label contains all
the information they want or not.
I don't want to get into the coercion business, but I think it is fraud
if people cannot tell from the label what it is they are buying. I also
think it is fraud if a label seems to claim a complete list of
ingredients, but actually leaves out some items.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST