General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Great GMO Legitimation Crisis [View all]Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I mean that would be correct labeling, yes? I suspect if people were asked, they would certainly like to know that food fertilized with shit may still contain e coli pathogens which manage to sicken and kill people on a regular basis (unlike transgenic foods). I mean if fertilizing food with shit is such a great idea, producers should be proud of it and have absolutely no issues with being forced to label their products and it should be their responsibility to use their free speech rights to inform their customers about how great of an idea fertilizing with shit is. So it really shouldn't matter that such labeling would have zero impact to public health and would only serve to mislead and scare people about the safety of the food supply.
Food allergens are less of a concern with GMOs, because unlike all other foods they are tested for them and rejected if levels are too high. So it's more than a bit ridiculous to compare food allergen labeling with GMO labeling and pretend it's all the same thing. If you were genuinely concerned about food allergens, you'd want all new hybrids tested including organically certified varietals, because unlike GMO which only alters a small portion of the genome and is subsequently tested for allergens, conventionally bred foods substantially alter the genome and aren't tested at all making them a much greater risk.