Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> the same techniques can be used for good or ill

One problem is consumers have segmented into two mutually exclusive groups. One likes healthy food and hates GMO. The other cares much less about both health and GMO. Since the first group has self-selected out of the market for GMO, sellers optimize for a health-indifferent population.

Side note: is the plural of one GMO two GMO? Two GMOs?

View on HN

Is that a problem with consumers or a problem with unregulated markets? I'll leave it at that.

> Is that a problem with consumers or a problem with unregulated markets?

Consumers are voters, so it's both. The number of voters one can productively engage about thoughtful GMO regulation is basically zero. People are against it or don't care.

It is a problem with GMO labeling requirement. GMO labeling requirement should be abolished because it is a meaningless distinction and consumers have no right to know such things.

> "GMO labeling requirement should be abolished because it is a meaningless distinction and consumers have no right to know such things."

I can understand why someone would argue it's a meaningless distinction. I don't agree with the idea that a consumer has no right to be informed. Let the consumer know, make the case that your product (any product) is safe, and let the consumer decide.

My stance on GMO labeling is analogous to kosher and halal foods. Consumers can and do demand arbitrarily meaningless standard such as kosher, halal, or GMO-free. I am even in favor of protecting such labels by advertising standard law: i.e. forbidding things to be labeled kosher if it actually is not kosher. But GMO labeling requirement is as ridiculous as kosher labeling requirement.

Plural is the same O = Organisms

Reply on news.ycombinator.com