SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It would increase costs unnecessarily

Putting a few more words on an existing label increases costs? That's a reach.

Putting a few words on a label wouldn't be the main driver, though it wouldn't be free. There will be compliance costs borne both by consumers and taxpayers, presumably. A division of some agency will be created to monitor GMO percentages in foods and whatnot. Some companies will choose to sub out the slightly cheaper GMO product for a non-GMO product to avoid the label, which will make that product slightly more costly without improving it. We're not talking thousands of dollars a year per person, but even if it's $10 it's still stupid and unnecessary.

It's also "stupid" and "unnecessary" to have nutrition facts by this dumb logic.

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:and possibly play on unfounded fears.

And possibly informs well-founded fears. Again, you don't know that GMO's are safe.

The fears are not well founded. They're based on cherry picking one or two studies out of thousands and/or superstition.

so like what cigarette execs were saying in the 50s?

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It would increase costs unnecessarily

Putting a few more words on an existing label increases costs? That's a reach.

Putting a few words on a label wouldn't be the main driver, though it wouldn't be free. There will be compliance costs borne both by consumers and taxpayers, presumably. A division of some agency will be created to monitor GMO percentages in foods and whatnot. Some companies will choose to sub out the slightly cheaper GMO product for a non-GMO product to avoid the label, which will make that product slightly more costly without improving it. We're not talking thousands of dollars a year per person, but even if it's $10 it's still stupid and unnecessary.

It's also "stupid" and "unnecessary" to have nutrition facts by this dumb logic.

Well, no, because nutrition facts provide useful and relevant information to the consumer.

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:and possibly play on unfounded fears.

And possibly informs well-founded fears. Again, you don't know that GMO's are safe.

The fears are not well founded. They're based on cherry picking one or two studies out of thousands and/or superstition.

so like what cigarette execs were saying in the 50s?

I can't even

Bucky wrote:The cost of regulatory compliance shouldn't be underestimated. Whereas, voluntarily printing "Non-GMO" on a label involves no such stipulations (unless challenged).

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are following in the footsteps of their bigoted peers in Indiana. A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate mirroring Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last Thursday. Only North Carolina wants to take it one step further.

Indiana’s draconian law gives business owners the legal right to pick and choose who they want to discriminate against based on their own religion. North Carolina’s law will extend that right to hospitals as well.

TenuredVulture wrote:bred to have giant breasts

JFLNYC wrote:I'm confused. There are many regulations requiring food producers to label their products so that, in a free market, consumers can make an informed choice. Those labeling requirements include both potentially harmful ingredients and benign ingredients. What's the problem with further informing consumers that something for sale is genetically modified so they can make an informed choice based upon the various data?

Doll Is Mine wrote::lol:

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are following in the footsteps of their bigoted peers in Indiana. A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate mirroring Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last Thursday. Only North Carolina wants to take it one step further.

Indiana’s draconian law gives business owners the legal right to pick and choose who they want to discriminate against based on their own religion. North Carolina’s law will extend that right to hospitals as well.

Doll Is Mine wrote::lol:

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are following in the footsteps of their bigoted peers in Indiana. A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate mirroring Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last Thursday. Only North Carolina wants to take it one step further.

Indiana’s draconian law gives business owners the legal right to pick and choose who they want to discriminate against based on their own religion. North Carolina’s law will extend that right to hospitals as well.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Slightly more than a month after Tom Schweich, Missouri’s auditor and a candidate for governor, took his own life, Spence Jackson, a longtime Republican spokesman who worked for Mr. Schweich, appears to have done the same.
In a statement Monday, the Jefferson City police said officers found Mr. Jackson dead Sunday night in the bedroom of his home in this capital city.

Mr. Jackson had been one of the many Republican players involved in the events surrounding his former boss’s suicide. Mr. Schweich died in late February after shooting himself at his home in suburban St. Louis.
Mr. Schweich’s supporters have argued that a brutal campaign for governor, accompanied by what Mr. Schweich, an Episcopalian, believed to be an anti-Semitic attack against him led by John Hancock, the chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, had contributed to his death.
Mr. Hancock has denied the allegations, but Mr. Jackson — just moments after Mr. Schweich’s funeral last month — was one of the first to call for his resignation as chairman.
The governor’s race had pitted Mr. Schweich against Catherine Hanaway, a St. Louis lawyer who had served as a federal prosecutor and was the first woman to be the speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. After a monthlong suspension of her campaign, Ms. Hanaway was back on the campaign trail over the weekend, participating in a number of Republican events in southwest Missouri.
Ms. Hanaway’s ties to Mr. Hancock run deep, as do her connections to a Kansas City-based consulting firm that had produced for an outside group a campaign commercial that disparaged Mr. Schweich’s physical appearance. Ms. Hanaway’s campaign is also contracting work to that firm, Axiom Strategies.
In an interview last week, Ms. Hanaway attempted to draw distance between herself and those involved in the negative campaign, but stopped short of calling for Mr. Hancock’s resignation or splitting ways with Axiom.
The death of Mr. Schweich has roiled Republicans here, and a number of other potential candidates have emerged, including John Brunner, a St. Louis businessman and a former candidate for United States Senate, and Eric Greitens, a former member of the Navy SEALs and a best-selling author.
The police in Jefferson City said they had reached out to law enforcement officials in Clayton, Mo., where an investigation had taken place into Mr. Schweich’s death. Captain Shoemaker said the police were “very aware of the political issues” surrounding Mr. Jackson and Mr. Schweich, and said they were issues “we’re clearly interested in.”

Doll Is Mine wrote::lol:

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are following in the footsteps of their bigoted peers in Indiana. A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate mirroring Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last Thursday. Only North Carolina wants to take it one step further.

Indiana’s draconian law gives business owners the legal right to pick and choose who they want to discriminate against based on their own religion. North Carolina’s law will extend that right to hospitals as well.