From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 16:13:27 MDT
Max More wrote,
> At 07:36 AM 6/28/01, Harvey wrote:
> >Brian D Williams wrote,
> > > Let's lose the rhetoric and let the market decide.
> >
> >I agree. I don't understand how any pro-market individual can be against
> >labeling. The fact that most people won't be able to use information to
> >make a good choice does not justify suppressing information and choice!
>
> Why? On enforced labeling -- the market (i.e. each individual company)
> should decide what labeling they think is needed (and distributors can
> decide to accept or reject carrying products depending on whether
> they want
> certain kinds of labeling). No labeling laws should be needed,
> just general
> application of liability principles. If a company (whether a
> megacorporation or small backyard operation) decides not to label
> a product
> that contains unusual ingredients known to cause allergic reactions or
> other harm in a significant number of people, they should be
> liable for not
> alerting consumers (and distributors) to this. No special law needed. I
> would apply the same principle to many other areas, so that special
> government regulations and expensive and powerful regulatory agencies are
> unnecessary...
Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. I am not in favor of
"warning" labels on GMO foods. However, for foods that give nutritional
analysis and an ingredient lists, I think the ingredients should list any
added ingredients, even when the ingredients are GMO induced. For example,
golden rice should not just be called "rice". It looks different, it tastes
different, and it has different nutritional qualities. I think it would be
misleading to call this stuff just plain "rice". It should be called
"golden rice", or the ingredient list should be something like
"beta-carotene enhanced rice".
I may be more interested in food ingredients than most people. I try to
calculate the nutrient values in the food I eat. I also read the
ingredients to figure out what I am eating. I would find it misleading if a
food has additional chemicals in it that are not noted on the label,
especially if the label seems to have a complete nutritional analysis and
ingredient list already. If I bought a food with no ingredient list, then I
wouldn't mind the lack of notice.
> On labeling GM foods only -- I find this highly dubious. If
> you're going to
> compel labeling, at least it should be applied consistently. "Natural"
> foods (which have often been selectively bred for many generations) that
> might contain chemicals causing allergic reactions should also require
> labels. In the absence of evidence showing that GM foods are *unusually*
> risky, I oppose labeling GM foods as such, and I oppose a law
> forcing that
> kind of labeling even more.
I would agree that all added ingredients need to be listed, whether they are
"natural" or not. Sprayed chemicals, waxes added later, food color, perfume
or even packaging that leaks BHT into the food should be noted. Anything
that changes the food composition should be listed. I think it is only fair
to fully disclose what the customer is buying.
I don't just apply this to food, I would apply this to any product. Wood
products that are really particle board should note that this is not really
solid wood, but is reconstituted saw-dust and glue. Hollow planks should be
labeled as hollow. One kind of wood covered with a veneer of another kind
of wood should be labeled as such. Anything that changes the composition of
a product without disclosing it to the buyer is misleading. A clear label
telling the consumer what they are buying seems reasonable to me.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:20 MST