People wonder what happens if we don’t have mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Freedom of choice is a two way street. As a consumer, you should have the ability to choose what you consume, but producers should also have the ability to choose what they produce and how they package it and introduce it to the market. 

How would that work?

Those who choose to label their products do so and then the public decides if it cares enough to buy labeled products or it prefers the cheaper goods even if they know they are modified or they simply don’t care either way.

This is why you can’t force people’s hand. What if some people prefer GMO food? What if some people prefer the cheaper prices? What if you’re artificially increasing those prices by requiring labeling?

Why don’t we just take a step back and let the market decide exactly where it wants to go?

In the end, if the public prefers Non-GMO and also prefers it to be labeled, those producers who provide products that fit those preferences will win out and those that don’t change their products will be left with a smaller share of the market (or no share at all). 

In the real world, it’s not mandatory to label GMOs, yet some stores, Whole Foods and Sprouts, do so. As do some manufacturers. What is more prominent in the market is not the labeling of GMOs but the labeling of Non-GMOs. 

This is actually a better approach, since it doesn’t force anyone to label anything, but those that don’t use GMOs and want to notify the public can get on board and those that don’t want to notify the public don’t have to and can risk the public no longer purchasing their product. 

Walk into a Whole Foods right now and you’ll find all kinds of products, from Non-GMOs to Organic to Naturals to regular foods. And everyone can shop their and everyone can buy the type of product that fits all of their preferences; both dietary and financial. 

When we talk about choice, I think a lot of people only focus on a single side of the coin. They assume that choice in a marketplace only refers to the consumers choice. That’s only half of the picture. A truly free market has choices for both consumers and producers. 

If producers want, they can supply goods that are contrary to the preferences of the consumers. They might be breaking through to a brand new market and revolutionize the industry or they might be headed for a cliff. Why not let them do what they want and let consumers buy what they want and the future of the industry will be determined by what new preferences consumers form by testing what’s available for them?

It is philosophically inconsistent to advocate for less government intervention yet want government to force the hand of producers. It’s also inconsistent to advocate for the freedom of choice for you and people in your group while also asking to limit the choices of a different group of people. 

If you really want GMOs labeled or even gone for good, start by only buying Non-GMOs. If enough people agree and also buy Non-GMOs, the rest of the equation will solve itself. 

21st-century-classical-liberal:

freebroccoli:

lady-liberty11:

21st-century-classical-liberal:

guess how long we’ve been genetically modifying plants and animals

Since before Gregor Mendel figured it out with peas, motherfuckers.

I don’t think selective breeding is the same thing as genetic modification.

Selective breeding is genetic modification.

There’s a difference between altering the genetics of food to help human nutrition and hopefully increasing corporate profits as opposed to altering the genetics of food to increase corporate profits regardless of the impact on human nutrition. 

I’m all for the former and 100% against the latter. 

Of course this is a complex issue, a lot more complex than many want to admit. People are also under the impression that we have no food on this planet and without GMOs, we’d all starve, which is false. We waste almost as much food in a year than we eat.

GMOs have also created an entirely new issue and that’s of genetic patenting. Regardless of how you feel about IP Law in general, it’s pretty easy to see why genetic patenting of life is dangerous and wrong. 

xamotomax reblogged your photo: The notion that if we cut our defense budget by as…

It is estimated that only roughly 30 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger. Think about that. Now look at these…

Then there’s the flip side of the coin. Those that think we can end poverty and world hunger by giving people money. 

Just think about what you are saying. Simple math tells us that you don’t understand simple math. 

The estimates of how many people live in poverty world-wide is around 20% of the population, which is about 1.5 billion people. $30 billion dollars applied here would mean about $20 dollars per person. PER PERSON. And you actually believed that this figure was true? Why? Because it’s got the word “billion” in it? 

I’m not even talking about the ignorant notion that just handing people money ends hunger and lifts people out of poverty. I’m talking about just giving people food. $20. You’re kidding, right? In what sense are you even considering that $30 billion? Per year? Per month? Per day? It’s got to be closer to the latter than the former. Even in the poorest countries, $20 a year is not enough to logistically grow, ship and supply food to everyone. 

If Warhawks and Social Justice bloggers ever went to war, the only casualty would be logical reasoning. 

I just spent 15 minutes explaining to someone how we throw away 40% of our purchased food on top of all the food the gov’t subsidies farms to throw away or not grow all together and then I explained how we subsidies them to keep prices artificially high so that we can keep inflation high to help pay for our gov’t treasury bonds so that America can keep their prepetual debt system going and that it’s all a scam. 

And the guy understood everything and agreed.

And then he responded by saying, “YES! That’s why we need to promote GMO foods so we can feed everyone…”