Originally published October 29 2014
Labeling GMO foods would cost consumers less than 1 cent per day, report says
by PF Louis
(NaturalNews) As suspected by many health food advocates who are pushing for GMO labeling laws in various states, the alarm that labeling GMOs would drastically increase food prices is bogus. But it works on the unthinking masses who don't really care enough about what they eat to send them to the polls, voting against labeling GMOs. Why else would a dumb fast food consumer go to the polls and vote no?
Let's face it, folks, those people outnumber those of us who care about what we eat. Have you noticed the fast food drive-thru lines after 4:30 PM? They are full of expensive SUVs driven by people getting off work or picking up the kids from soccer practice to pick up those hardy McDonald's meals, or maybe they don't want to cook because they have TV programs that they want to watch.
And don't forget, having the best vehicle and maintaining its cost is more important than what one puts into his or her body. After all, if after a junk food meal one doesn't puke heavily and collapse, it couldn't be harmful, right? Besides, processed and junk fast foods are so cheap and convenient, and they taste great. Well, pardon the sarcasm, but that's the hive-thinking that dominates.
What Consumers Union says about GMO labeling costsConsumers Union is the non-profit public policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. They are in favor of GMO labeling. Focusing on Oregon's Ballot Measure 92, which is to be voted on for GMO labeling, they commissioned ECONorthwest, an economic planning firm, to investigate and analyze the true cost of consumer goods if GMOs were labeled.
The study concluded that the true cost of labeling GMO foods would be $2.30 per year per person -- under a penny a day. Processed foods would require the manufacturers to add the labels, while whole fresh foods would have to be labeled by the retailers. Ballot 92 proposes the same GMO content standard of less than 1 percent (0.9) that European nations use for labeling GMOs.
The study by ECONorthwest did not consider the cost of reformulating processed food, because that's not required by labeling initiatives. Perhaps that cost was used and abused by the anti-GMO-labeling food industry lobby and the biotech industries -- Monsanto et al.
But labeling will not require reformulating unless the processed food producers want to take out enough GMO content to be under that 0.9 percent standard. The cost analysis by ECONorthwest was very thorough and can be viewed here [PDF].
Ads opposing Measure 92 claim that labeling will force farmers and food producers to spend "millions" and increase food costs for consumers. They also have made assumptions based on industry-funded studies that have overestimated the cost of similar GMO-labeling proposals in California, Washington and New York -- putting the cost at $100-$200 annually or $400-$800 for a family of four.
It's important to realize, as Consumers Union has stated, that it's not just the genetically engineered foods that are problematic. The incredible amount of extremely toxic pesticides required and the genetically engineered insecticides from crops that create their own offer even more long-term health concerns.
Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union Food, said, "Producers are required to label foods that are frozen, from concentrate, homogenized, or irradiated, as well as a food's country of origin. Poll after poll has found that more than 90 percent of consumers want foods that are genetically engineered to be labeled."
Funny thing though, it seems that half of those polled change their minds upon getting false food price alarms. Maybe the ECONorthwest report should be used by those activists who've forced the labeling issue.
Meanwhile, the bad guys have put up a lot of money in Oregon and Colorado. They need to be matched. Here's how every one dollar becomes three.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml