Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Soladrin wrote:

Adding even one letter to a label costs thousands. Because it means they will have to reprint millions of labels.

I don't know about having to reprint "millions" of labels... I agree that it won't be "free" because they pay graphic artists (well, really people) to come up with the labels of their food and the layout on the container, which would be redone.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Adding even one letter to a label costs thousands. Because it means they will have to reprint millions of labels.

I don't know about having to reprint "millions" of labels... I agree that it won't be "free" because they pay graphic artists (well, really people) to come up with the labels of their food and the layout on the container, which would be redone.

Its not just that.

The entire label may have to be changed because the GMO warning needs to be X size and repeated Y number of times.

It will mean having to not only design a new label, but possibly get new label applicators or alter how the packaging is assembled.

You are talking potentially millions and millions of dollars per product that now needs labeling.



And BTW, it still wouldn't apply to produce.

When you go and buy an ear of corn it doesn't have any labeling beyond a number and the bar code. Although I have a little tip, that number can tell you if its a GMO or not(you just need to go online to find it) as well as a bunch of other stuff.

Anyway, we don't need to label GMOs because they're the standard. If anything, we should label stuff that isn't a GMO. it would be easier.

It's amazing that US manufacturers are dumber and less capable than almost every other western country.

No, every other country simply has an irrational fear of GMOs and has enacted scare legislation.

Wouldn't it be easier to encourage other manufacturers the option to label their stuff 'GMO free'? That way no one has to feel they're being forced to put anything on the can.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, every other country simply has an irrational fear of GMOs and has enacted scare legislation.

In Europe its less scare legislation and more including GMO's in current labeling laws, which are more restrictive overseas than in the US.

The GMO controversy has always baffled me, cause the claims from the anti-GMO crowd make anti-abortion advocates seem rational in comparison. Like, really, insane things are said. Go to the GMO article on Wikipedia, go to the talk page and just read that gak. Really. Spend 30 minutes going through the sheer lunacy that is this debate.

I'm cool and all with labeling things what they are. No company is going to take a huge hit having to comply with new regulations. They have to comply with new regulations every few years anyway they're used to it. But the GMO debate is insane.

 d-usa wrote:
It's amazing that US manufacturers are dumber and less capable than almost every other western country.

The interesting part is that we had people like Demming, Allen, Deitz, and Dooley in our countries history that spread revolutionary manufacturing and industrial training ideas throughout the world. The U.S. developed TWI methods from WW2 were the basis for the Japanese system of Kaizen.
I don't know, though, if I'd go so far as to say U.S. manufacturers are that bad.

I don't know, though, if I'd go so far as to say U.S. manufacturers are that bad.

That's not what he's saying. US Manufactuerers are as good as any other, but like any other they want to minimize costs. Reality is that changing labels doesn't cost that much to large companies. It's nickles and dimes in a pool full of quarters. They don't need a bunch of white knights to jump to their defense on this issue (not on the "to label or not to label" question anyway).

 LordofHats wrote:

I don't know, though, if I'd go so far as to say U.S. manufacturers are that bad.

That's not what he's saying. US Manufactuerers are as good as any other, but like any other they want to minimize costs. Reality is that changing labels doesn't cost that much to large companies. It's nickles and dimes in a pool full of quarters. They don't need a bunch of white knights to jump to their defense on this issue (not on the "to label or not to label" question anyway).

Who's white knighting?

Relapse wrote:


Who's white knighting?

People white knight for large corporations all the time. "This regulation is unfair" and what not "it'll cost too much." There's more than a fair bit of it in this thread. Raising minimum wage by 25 cents would cost more than altering a label.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Who's white knighting?

People white knight for large corporations all the time. "This regulation is unfair" and what not "it'll cost too much." There's more than a fair bit of it in this thread. Raising minimum wage by 25 cents would cost more than altering a label.

I see what you mean.

I don't have any problem with GMO food, but I also don't have a problem with requiring it to be labelled for the people that do. Yes, it's a cost, but it's a laughably trivial cost, so much so I can't believe we're even throwing it forward as a serious impediment.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't have any problem with GMO food, but I also don't have a problem with requiring it to be labelled for the people that do. Yes, it's a cost, but it's a laughably trivial cost, so much so I can't believe we're even throwing it forward as a serious impediment.

Agreed. A large enough percentage of people out there like to know what they are getting to justify the labeling, especially if dealing with allergies.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Who's white knighting?

People white knight for large corporations all the time. "This regulation is unfair" and what not "it'll cost too much." There's more than a fair bit of it in this thread. Raising minimum wage by 25 cents would cost more than altering a label.

I didn't think people were white-knighting originally, I think they were just responding in a 'point-of-order' kind of way to the statement that altering the labels would have NO cost.

(You know how much gamers love precision, correcting one another, and displaying their own knowledge of trivia. )

 Jimsolo wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Who's white knighting?

People white knight for large corporations all the time. "This regulation is unfair" and what not "it'll cost too much." There's more than a fair bit of it in this thread. Raising minimum wage by 25 cents would cost more than altering a label.

I didn't think people were white-knighting originally, I think they were just responding in a 'point-of-order' kind of way to the statement that altering the labels would have NO cost.

(You know how much gamers love precision, correcting one another, and displaying their own knowledge of trivia. )

We also have people completely ignoring points that they don't want to debate and then continue to make arguments that have already been covered.

Such as countering the argument that "labeling costs would depend on what the labeling requirements are. If they would include a simple "GMO" in the ingridient list it wouldn't be any cost (or a very very tiny cost)". Add "GMO" next to the individual ingredients that are "GMO" or adding "GMO" in the same area as other information such as Allergens on this label wouldn't add any cost:



This would be a zero net cost requirement for any manufacturer, especially if you had any kind of lead time. The label is already required and is already located on every single package. You already have the staff in house that designs these labels because you already change your entire package multiple times a year for Christmas, July 4th, the World Cup, whatever (although it is too expensive to change a couple of letter on the ingredient list?). You don't have to make labels to replace existing packaging if you have enough lead time. If you are required to have labels on all your products by the end of 2016 you simply start labeling products now and with "old out first" your non-compliant labels are already sold by the time that date comes around.

Which is the argument I have been making since my first post in this thread, yet we still get a counter like:

The entire label may have to be changed because the GMO warning needs to be X size and repeated Y number of times.

It will mean having to not only design a new label, but possibly get new label applicators or alter how the packaging is assembled.

You are talking potentially millions and millions of dollars per product that now needs labeling.

Which basically just boils down to "I'm going to ignore what you are saying and continue to argue that it is not feasable for a business to comply with the arbitrary requirements that I just made up".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

I don't know, though, if I'd go so far as to say U.S. manufacturers are that bad.

That's not what he's saying. US Manufactuerers are as good as any other, but like any other they want to minimize costs. Reality is that changing labels doesn't cost that much to large companies. It's nickles and dimes in a pool full of quarters. They don't need a bunch of white knights to jump to their defense on this issue (not on the "to label or not to label" question anyway).

This. Apperantly all other companies in western nations are able to cope with labeling requirements but it appears that US businesses will be crippled because they are unable to deal with the same stuff.

 d-usa wrote:


Which basically just boils down to "I'm going to ignore what you are saying and continue to argue that it is not feasable for a business to comply with the arbitrary requirements that I just made up".

I agree that if any regulations dictate that there be GMO added to a label, if it's done on the individual ingredient level, in that list, won't have much effect. However, if GMO products will be required to alter their packaging (as cigarettes and chew did), then there may be some additional costs not associated with the usual holiday/celebrity appearances.

I agree that the cost would be negligible, and that it would have NO impact on business.

I don't see how you can say the cost would be zero, though. When you ADD text to a label, the cost of printing that label goes up, even incrementally. Multiplied across billions of labels, it becomes a substantial figure. (AGAIN, not one that the company couldn't afford to lose.)

Saying that it would not cost them anything is hyperbole at best.

Now, again, that's no reason not to add it to the label. Worst case scenario, you raise the cost of each package by a penny, and you've more than made up your losses.

if gw can rename ig and afford to completely redo all there boxs, the largest companies in the world can surely do he same
-winston-salem doesnt exist (hey are towns in nc winston/salem) rjreynolds makes camels/winstons and phillip morris makes marb's,

 Ouze wrote:
I don't have any problem with GMO food, but I also don't have a problem with requiring it to be labelled for the people that do. Yes, it's a cost, but it's a laughably trivial cost, so much so I can't believe we're even throwing it forward as a serious impediment.

The impediment of course is that many food processors are rightly afraid that once GMO is on the label a lot of consumers will refuse to purchase.

Ironically the secrecy and defensiveness of food processors about the GMO issue, as witnessed in this reluctance to label things clearly, is part of the reason that consumers distrust them.

forgotten ghosts wrote:
-winston-salem doesnt exist (hey are towns in nc winston/salem) rjreynolds makes camels/winstons and phillip morris makes marb's,

I was being facetious But people should realize that most of the tobacco industry was based in there in NC.... It was more to point out the idiocy of Monsanto apparently saying "we can't be forced to put something on our label, as that's unconstitutional"

edit, and Winston-Salem DOES exist: http://www.visitwinstonsalem.com/

The impediment of course is that many food processors are rightly afraid that once GMO is on the label a lot of consumers will refuse to purchase.

Which is ridiculous, as a consumer's options are eat GMO or starve (really, very few foods on the market today are not GMO and this is only going to increase as time goes on). It's like the big "they're putting hormones in our cows" stuff. You can either eat the meat pumped up with hormones, or eat no meat at all.

It is a legitimate concern for manufacturers putting a label stating it contains GMOs alongside allergy warnings. Allergy warnings are for serious health issues related to consumption, there are no such health risks demonstrated with GMOs in the marketplace, but psychologically the customer is having the idea that they are hazardous suggested by associating such things on a label. Any warning put on a label is going to make people say 'if we're being warned it must be dangerous'. This is my big problem with the anti-GM movement, so much of it is about suggesting problems without proof. They always say that insufficient testing has done but don't give a clear idea of what they would accept, and hand their claims of danger on apparent lack of evidence to the contrary.

While I believe in product testing and risk assessment, anti-GM supporters often demand that GM supporters provide evidence of a negative, which as with many things in science is very difficult to do absolutely.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

forgotten ghosts wrote:
-winston-salem doesnt exist (hey are towns in nc winston/salem) rjreynolds makes camels/winstons and phillip morris makes marb's,

I was being facetious But people should realize that most of the tobacco industry was based in there in NC.... It was more to point out the idiocy of Monsanto apparently saying "we can't be forced to put something on our label, as that's unconstitutional"

edit, and Winston-Salem DOES exist: http://www.visitwinstonsalem.com/

ya i know i was just portraying the average american, oblivious to everything
yes does exist as a city not a tobacco company

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, every other country simply has an irrational fear of GMOs and has enacted scare legislation.

Yes because informing consumers scares them.

Explains a lot about America

I've got no problem with genetically modified food, and honestly I think most people who are concerned about it are reacting more out of emotion than any kind of scientific understanding... but labelling laws are there to allow consumers to make informed decisions, whether those informed decisions are sensible or not isn't really for other people to second guess.

Honestly, a listing of each ingredient as GMO or not would be a lot more transparent than the weirdness that's in place right now.

 d-usa wrote:
But let's look at pesticide resistance: now we have a way to farm that just relies on the farmer spraying a metric crap-ton of pesticides on his crops. Those pesticides will then runoff into the rivers and lakes, affect the environment, enter the food chain and drinking water, and cause bad effects down the road.

Heavy use of pesticides existed for a long time before genetic modification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:
Adding even one letter to a label costs thousands. Because it means they will have to reprint millions of labels.

If the law passes with effect as of midnight tonight, sure. But almost any time these things are passed there is a long lead in time, generally a couple of years. Unless a company has a stockpile of labels for the next few years, by the time the law comes in to place they will be on to the new, compliant labels.

The real cost will be in figuring out what ingredients are GM and what aren't. The jar on the shelf often goes through a lot of hands, with ingredients sourced from thousands of suppliers, and companies often have remarkably little idea exactly how much of their food is GM - even the ones that claim it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, every other country simply has an irrational fear of GMOs and has enacted scare legislation.

In terms of irrational fear of GM I'd say it's about the same everywhere.

The reason there are stronger labeling laws elsewhere is simply that we have stronger labeling laws than you guys in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not just that.

The entire label may have to be changed because the GMO warning needs to be X size and repeated Y number of times.

It will mean having to not only design a new label, but possibly get new label applicators or alter how the packaging is assembled.

You are talking potentially millions and millions of dollars per product that now needs labeling.

I think you might be really, really overestimating the salary of your average graphic design artist.

Anyhow, companies change packaging all the time, just to freshen up the product. They do this regularly because re-arranging the label and changing the colours a bit is a really minor expense. The argument that having a GM label added to a package would cost millions is very, very far-fetched.

 sebster wrote:

Honestly, a listing of each ingredient as GMO or not would be a lot more transparent than the weirdness that's in place right now.

Honestly, I think that something more like a restaurant "peanut alergen warning" would be more appropriate... I mean, could you imagine seeing a product whose ingredient table looked like this:

Carbonated Water (GMO), Sugar (GMO), Orange Juice Concentrate (GMO), Citric Acid (GMO), etc... I mean, I got that off a can of "throwback" Mountain Dew (and added the GMO thing) so you can see how a product with relatively few ingredients wouldn't be that impacted, but those products like cereals, or pasta, or canned vegetable mixes, soups, etc that have a much longer ingredient list would be affected. I'd probably look cleaner (and allow the company to 'hide' or disguise the label better) if there were a blanket "This product was made with ingredients that may contain GMO products".

Personally I would prefer to promote "organic" solutions - such as GM insects etc that eat the pests but are themselves genetically sterile so their populations never get out of control.

I believe in a market for 'organically grown GM'. Engineer plants that are disease and pest resistant, but then grow them in a way that is free from pesticide and herbicide spraying. I'm far more concerned about food being contaminated with chemical sprays than I am over GM.

Once you've created a GM plant, there's nothing to say you can't grow it in organic conditions, at least I don't see a problem. That GM got bundled up with obviously environmentally damaging practices like indiscriminate pesticide spraying says something about the various agendas in the debate.

GMO's will give me super powers. Nothing cool like invisibility or flight, but they will grant me the power to poop blood and grow more hair in my ears!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I believe in a market for 'organically grown GM'. Engineer plants that are disease and pest resistant, but then grow them in a way that is free from pesticide and herbicide spraying. I'm far more concerned about food being contaminated with chemical sprays than I am over GM.

Once you've created a GM plant, there's nothing to say you can't grow it in organic conditions, at least I don't see a problem. That GM got bundled up with obviously environmentally damaging practices like indiscriminate pesticide spraying says something about the various agendas in the debate.

That's actually why most GMs are created because they want to not apply as many pesticides and herbicides.

They may not be grown organically, but the point is to use less chemicals.