Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

- There are people who don't know a lot about earlier methods of causing mutations such as chemicals and radiation as applied to crops (labeled organic or otherwise, I suspect)

- There should truth in advertising/labeling for food. We've been talking about the organic label, but I think we both agree that it shouldn't be limited to just organic, correct?

I think your points about random mutation possibly being more worrisome than targeted (transgenic) mutation, or perhaps knowledge of what's been done in the past may alleviate fears is right on the money. It'd be good to raise awareness of this as well.

What do you think? Substantially accurate representation? Anything to add/subtract/modify?



>...I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

Well... I think we agree on part of this and disagree on other parts...

I think producers should be free to market their products as organic, cage free, free range, kosher, etc, and the consumers should understand what the label means. I think more work needs to be done here to make sure consumers know what they are buying.

I am opposed to mandated labeling of anything unless there is a scientific basis for it being a safety concern - potential allergens, etc. For that reason, a GMO food that has passed EPA, FDA, USDA and state regulations as being safe should not have to be labeled - besides imposing a cost on food, it would likely confuse the customer as the implication would be there are health risks compared to other food. If a producer wants to indicate a product as GMO or not GMO, they should be free to do so, but it shouldn't be imposed on them by the government.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: