Hacker News Reader

Comment by twiceaday | Hacker News Reader

Branding food as GMO has only negative connotations. I think the way forward is to demand for a non-GMO label. This is more realistic and will work better when partially implemented.

View on HN

It makes zero sense for companies to be required to list what is NOT in their food. Yeah, let's scrap listing ingredients and instead list everything that isn't in an item. ;)

Non-GMO is not an ingredient, it is a classification. Ingredients either classify or not and the label on the package speaks to the classification. A common example is "not from concentrate".

Edit: (sorry for changing my comment, I add the original below).

You are picking on the wording. There must be a succinct way to say non-genetically modified animal.

Example: Chicken. Very succinct.

If it's GMO: GMO-Chicken. Seems succinct as well.

Non-GMO Chicken. Least succinct of the 3.

Isn't that like saying "does not contain excrement" will work better?

Do some products on the market contain excrement? Because if they do I would either like to know all that do or at least some that do not.

Shrimp is the first thing that comes to mind. Never seen shit-free shrimp labels.

Shrimp should probably be labeled "contains cockroaches" too.

Never bought a package of deveined shrimp?

I'm making an analogy to the earlier remark that labeling things "has GMO" is like labeling them "has excrement" and "is radioactive."

"Has excrement" would certainly be perceived as negative, but the effect on my shopping of "has no excrement" would be a lot more negative (trying to find this sticker on everything I purchase, for example).

This seems pretty relevant:

http://xkcd.com/641/

If the main argument against telling people the truth is that they won't buy a product, I feel that's not a good argument.

If informed people won't do something, the answer shouldn't be to keep them in the dark, no matter how much you disagree with their reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com