Originally posted by twhitehead"So whatever the consumers want, should be included on the label?"
So whatever the consumers want, should be included on the label? What percentage of users should be required before such labelling gets enforced? Should this apply to any possible labelling a consumer can think up?
Why would you not buy GM?
If enough consumers want it, yes.
"Why would you not buy GM?"
The general reasons. You know them.
You sems to want to skip any labeling. I don't.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe market actually IS deciding about labeling. There is no prohibition against food companies voluntarily labeling their food as GMO-free. If companies thought it would increase their sales, they would sell and label GMO-free foods.
I say push for labeling, and let the people decide, through fair market practices.
Monsanto has been derailing almost all efforts here in the US to promote labeling of GMO foods. What are they afraid of?
General Mills is actually testing this idea with Cheerios, labeling them as GMO-free. And they are doing so even though the company believes that GMOs are safe (http://www.cheerios.com/en/Articles/cheerios-and-gmos#.U7rvb_ldXEM), so this is purely a marketing strategy to see if consumers are more willing to buy GMO-free foods.
Since the labeling change, it looks like sales have not increased (http://bringmethenews.com/2014/03/19/no-sales-boost-for-gmo-free-cheerios-general-mills-3q-profits-fall/). This is at least one data point that indicates consumers do not consider GMO-labeling important, at least in the U.S.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe question is just not about labeling, but about whether it is mandated or not. If enough consumers want it, there will be labeling, regardless of whether it is mandated by governments or not. Besides Cheerios, the Whole Foods grocery store chain is going to mandate GMO labeling (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/our-commitment-gmo-labeling).
"So whatever the consumers want, should be included on the label?"
If enough consumers want it, yes.
If companies need GMO labels because of market forces, so be it, but governments shouldn't knowingly promote beliefs that run counter to scientific consensus.
Originally posted by DeepThought
Quote the post (page number and count down to the post) where I claimed that international trade in food was simple.
Britain, however, imports more than she exports, which is supremely relevant, we can hardly be accused of dumping a surplus if we don't have one to dump.
Clearly you are using an overly simplistic model to make your claim.
I don't know if Canada is a net importer or exporter of food, but it is entirely possible that it is a net importer yet still dumps excess wheat on Africa. I see no reason to believe the UK is incapable of doing the same for some crop that they have excess of.
Originally posted by twhitehead"What percentage is 'enough'?"
What percentage is 'enough'?
[b]The general reasons. You know them.
No, I don't, which is why I asked.
You sems to want to skip any labeling. I don't.
I want to skip misleading or irrelevant labelling.[/b]
That is not for me to decide.
"The general reasons. You know them."
"No, I don't, which is why I asked."
Then you should follow the debate better.
"You sems to want to skip any labeling. I don't."
"I want to skip misleading or irrelevant labelling."
You have every right to have that opinion.
I use my right to avoid products that has GMO-ingredients. I buy other products. I don't care in what country it is produced. But if USA is a country that doesn't label GM-products specifically, then I avoid US-products to be sure. I have the right to do so.
Originally posted by PatNovakIf I have another opinion than you have - how can you force me to buy GM-products? I simply don't buy GM-products that I'm not sure of.
The question is just not about labeling, but about whether it is mandated or not. If enough consumers want it, there will be labeling, regardless of whether it is mandated by governments or not. Besides Cheerios, the Whole Foods grocery store chain is going to mandate GMO labeling (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/our-commitment-gmo-labeling).
If companie ...[text shortened]... t, but governments shouldn't knowingly promote beliefs that run counter to scientific consensus.
Would you like to put in law to forbid GM-information on the label? Communistically?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasOf course not, and you couldn't possibly have concluded that from my post. I am only arguing that the government shouldn't promote such beliefs, as they run counter to scientific consensus. I said that if companies want to voluntarily have GMO labels, they are free to do so, and some are already moving in that direction.
Would you like to put in law to forbid GM-information on the label? Communistically?
how can you force me to buy GM-products?
Where did I say anything about forcing you to buy GMO products? If you live in the US, you can shop at places like Whole Foods to avoid them, and there are probably similar options outside the U.S. It may not be as easy to avoid them as you'd like, but that is neither my problem nor the government's problem.
Originally posted by PatNovakIn the EU it is fairly hard to buy GMO products, because the EU and its member states have been slow to legislate in favour of it, fearing the voters' fears. I actually have difficulty finding products which are non-fair trade and non-organic (I try to avoid both for ethical reasons) in the supermarket for certain food types.
Of course not, and you couldn't possibly have concluded that from my post. I am only arguing that the government shouldn't promote such beliefs, as they run counter to scientific consensus. I said that if companies want to voluntarily have GMO labels, they are free to do so, and some are already moving in that direction.
[i]how can you force me to buy GM ...[text shortened]... s easy to avoid them as you'd like, but that is neither my problem nor the government's problem.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBritain is a net importer of indigenous (I assume this refers to variety) unmilled wheat from non-EU countries with a trade deficit of £5,449,977, there was a slight trade surplus with the EU of £226,619. For non-indigenous varieties of unmilled wheat there were large deficits (unsurprisingly).Britain, however, imports more than she exports, which is supremely relevant, we can hardly be accused of dumping a surplus if we don't have one to dump.
Clearly you are using an overly simplistic model to make your claim.
I don't know if Canada is a net importer or exporter of food, but it is entirely possible that it is a net importer ...[text shortened]... reason to believe the UK is incapable of doing the same for some crop that they have excess of.
For milled cereals the figures were indigenous EU £72,907,147, non-EU £13,343,257 both surpluses, non-indigenous EU £1342,695 surplus, non-EU £483,152 deficit. Putting this together with the figures for unmilled wheat we import wheat from outside the EU, process it and then sell it on to EU countries, we import additional milled wheat from non-EU countries. The data set I have does not specify whether they are African or not.
We are a net exporter of rolled and flaked cereals (this can only be oats or rice), for highly processed cases we are net importers from Europe of indigenous rolled or flaked cereals (Musili probably), we are net exporters to the whole of the rest of the world of porridge oats. We are net exporters of non-indigenous rolled and flaked cereals (this is probably rice) to the rest of the world, this must involve importing the raw ingredient.
For Lamb and mutton the trade surplus with Europe was £293,004,570, the deficit with non-EU countries (probably mostly New Zealand) was £309,658,880.
Conclusion is we tend to import, process, and then export. This is different from simply "dumping a surplus".
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn the U.S., simply avoiding Whole Foods grocery stores goes a long way toward accomplishing both of those goals.
In the EU it is fairly hard to buy GMO products, because the EU and its member states have been slow to legislate in favour of it, fearing the voters' fears. I actually have difficulty finding products which are non-fair trade and non-organic (I try to avoid both for ethical reasons) in the supermarket for certain food types.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If I understand the figures correctly it is not about what could theoretically be produced in the UK but what is at the moment being produced and imported. The UK could most certainly produce enough food domestically to feed its populace, although it would require a change of diet. Repealing the CAP (a good idea, in my opinion) would not be such a probl ...[text shortened]... , since it would hurt the most inefficient farmers (mainly in Southern and Eastern Europe) most.
The UK could most certainly produce enough food domestically to feed its populace, although it would require a change of diet.I found the answer to this on a government spreadsheet. It lists arable land use on June 2012 the list is:
Cereals.....................48%.....3,028 thousand hectares
Temporary grass.......22%.....1,390 (Permanent grassland 9,725 thousand hectares)
Oilseeds.....................12%........752
Other arable crops........9%.......582
Horticultural crops.........3%.......163
Uncropped arable land...4%......255
Potatoes.......................2%........139
Permanent grassland has been grassland over 5 years, temporary grassland less then 5 years.
So the answer depends on whether temporary grass (people still leave fields fallow?) can be converted to crop production (potatoes are probably quickest in an emergency) quickly without messing everything else up, based on the amount of grassland I'd say probably (need an expert for this). The potato harvest can be trebled without changing anything. There's stacks more grazing so I think you are probably right and that Britain could be food self-sufficient within about 6 months in a total emergency (which I'm quite pleased about).
Source:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315108/auk-chapter02-29may14.xls
Originally posted by PatNovakYou are pro GM, I understand that, and that is your right.
Of course not, and you couldn't possibly have concluded that from my post. I am only arguing that the government shouldn't promote such beliefs, as they run counter to scientific consensus. I said that if companies want to voluntarily have GMO labels, they are free to do so, and some are already moving in that direction.
[i]how can you force me to buy GM ...[text shortened]... s easy to avoid them as you'd like, but that is neither my problem nor the government's problem.
I am against GM, and that is my right.
So if I don't want to buy any GM products, then I don't know how I can avoid them if I am not informed about it. If I suspect GM, then I buy something else that I am more sure it is GM free. Simple as that.
You tell me that it is hard to avoid GM ingredients in US produced products, then I have to avoid every US product that is not labelled GM free. I have alternatives.