Thank you nanny state..... I just love paying more for food when you issue more mandates on manufacturers because that will be the end result. It's not going to help make people any healthier (that ship left the dock l-o-n-g ago and has been permanently lost at sea). The increased cost won't see it's way to the farmer/producer (we know about these things here in farm country). So don't blame the farmer/producer, blame the government for increased food prices due to just such a change in labeling, should the bill pass and go into effect.

Yet one more reason I choose whole foods. I don't have to guess what's in it, and I don't need a special label.....

Well said GL.

Has to make one wonder if the 'lawmakers in DC' introducing the bill have ever shopped for, prepared, provided the daily food needs for their families themselves. Did you notice the article included a photo of a row of snack chips, and mentioned M&Ms in their need for more precise labeling...as if those are foods. We need someone to label for us - ultimately pass on that cost to us - that chips and candy may not be natural and healthy?

I've never understood the arguments that requiring the producers to include useful, precise, informative labels on the food would somehow cause the price of the food to go up. Any food item that has a package already has labeling so this is primarily a change in what is printed on the label.

The only ways I can see that this would cost the food company more is if they don't know what they're putting in the food and have to pay a scientist to figure out what all it contains, or if the producers know that if they actually tell consumers what is in it, the consumers wouldn't buy it, and so the producers feel they would then have to use less-bad/more-expensive ingredients.

I guess they could be counting the millions of dollars they feel they have to spend on "lobbying" and "campaign contributions" and lawyer fees to fight any change in the requirements, but I fail to see how being required to disclose what is in a food item automatically makes that item cost more.

The part of the article that bothers me is the HHS department being given two years to come up with acceptable definitions of common words. Really? How incompetent do you need to be to need two years for that. Maybe its just to give them time for the politicians to collect all the "lobbying" and "campaign contributions" and other legally sanctioned forms of bribery.

Agree with last two posts.

If you take the time to locate and read the bill (which is quite lengthy), it becomes very clear where extra money is going to be spent to comply with the law, which will raise the prices. In the end, all those costs and charges are shared with the people who buy products. I want safe foods like everyone else, and we have the safest food in the world here in the U.S. This is just more nanny state!

It's true. The extra bits must cost someone somewhere, and if people will pay more for the product with the extra labelling features, they'll be asked to pay it. Big time processed foods, however, are less likely to have a marketplace supply and demand equation, and more a complex pricing algorithm that is designed to find the sweet spot of maximum profit margin taking into account supply chain, production facilities, labor, etc. The price will go up if they can convince people to pay more.

It's the prices from small time makers who pay a lot for legal labelling information and who may have to do more than a graphic design revision and a little math, who will get hit with high costs that they absolutely must pass on because they're not big enough to absorb them. That might be the local cookie bakery or vodka pasta sauce maker.

OTOH, I like knowing that these avocados are from California and those are from Mexico, that those bananas are certified organic, and these are fair trade. It costs more to track and sign and label these things, and they're whole, self contained, foods. Yes, the costs are born by the post farmer supply chain, and sometimes passed to the consumer, but so are the costs of the Christmas themed tomato label, and all kinds of other non-food things.

Even more troubling to me is that from one side of their mouth our politicians are talking "truth in labelling" and "right to know", while pushing hard for a federal law that would prevent states from passing any laws requiring labels on products containing GMOs. That federal bill is being funded by millions from the grocery industry, including Coca Cola, Kraft, etc., and is being pushed, of course, by Monsanto/etc.

When I contacted by politicians I was told that they were "closely following" the issue, and that they understood that there was no harm in GMOs according to scientific studies (funded by Monsanto, of course, not independent ones). I replied that I wasn't arguing the safety of the product, only my right to know what was in it and whether to purchase it based on the ingredients. I got no reply and, of course, my representatives voted for it.

Pfffft. So we need to be protected when it suits the politicians but not when they are getting paid to not protect us. Yeah....

Annie

Don't the food companies already have all the info they'd need to put on package labeling? Seems like it would just be a matter of redesign - which many companies already do ( "New & Improved!", anyone?)

As someone who reads every label, I'm for full information. How can someone make good decisions w/o it?

GMO salmon will be sold as "Atlantic" salmon under the AquAdvantage label. That is simply unfathomable.

Key word is 'sold' - reports I've heard have pointed out that a large number of consumers do not want to buy it & some retailers are pledging not to sell it.

The GE salmon, that is...

Yes, it faces an upstream battle:)

The issue with the GMO salmon is when it's an ingredient. Everything labelled "organic" is supposed to be non-GMO, and it's pretty easy to spot the AquAdvantage name on a label. But what about the (ConAgra) salmon flavored cream cheese? What about the lox at the deli counter? What about the frozen entrees? What about the salmon at restaurants?

There are a lot of people who have nothing against processed foods and preservatives who don't want their salmon to have eel genes. Doesn't matter if they're "safe" (i.e., non-toxic), doesn't matter if salmon farms have questionable stewardship practices, all they want is a fish to be 100% fish on an emotional level. That would require positive labelling, that is, not selling the fish in any form without saying it was GMO, and that's not going to happen, but preventing other companies from saying it has no GMOs is preposterous.

If they're so worried about people not wanting to eat their frankenfish, why don't they just put their energies into better ways to grow real fish? Why do they have to be able to trick them?

carol, the problem is that if it is not required to be labelled, and in fact, states are prohibited from requiring it to be labelled, it won't be labelled and then you won't know what you are buying, so you can't make an informed decision.

This is being justified by holding up the current standard of "voluntary disclosure". Funny how not one single company or item has ever been "voluntarily" labelled yet in something like 7 or 8 years...

So, a majority of people don't want it, won't buy it and intend to avoid it, while the politicians are very busily making sure we won't know what it is at all, thanks to the lobbyists and their cash.

Annie

I'd suspect that any added cost is likely going to be from the team of lawyers trying to figure out what loophole in the law will allow potato chips and candy bars to be labeled as "healthy".

Words that people key in on like "healthy" or "all natural" need definitions that people can easily understand. As I understand it now, "natural" means almost nothing. Heck, rattlesnake venom is "all natural."

I did see some bags of dirt at the local home center labeled "organic." What does that mean, the dirt was raised without growth hormones?

The "organic" word makes a lot more sense in French, which is biologique. That usually means it doesn't have petrochemical fertilizers in it, which makes the word "organic" silly, since one of its primary meanings is "carbon based", even though it comes from another meaning, which is "as is done in nature" (such as when one speaks of "organic" lines in art). Considering that nitrogen isn't chemically organic, and is usually a requirement for soil health, it gets even sillier. But "organic" is a sales word, now, and "no fossil chemical fertilizers" doesn't grab the shopper who's just walking by.

It may also be a positive statement that it has been amended with essential organic compounds (like compost).

I think there's also a requirement for organic soil chemistry to be able to certify organic produce, so if you're selling your garden produce as "organic" the bag of organic soil could be a way to comply.

Organic means no chemical fertilisers, pesticides, growth hormones.....antibiotics and other medecines are highly regulated....food you actually want to eat.

Contrary to popular belief, organic does not automatically mean "pesticide free" or "chemical free". Under the laws of most states, organic farmers are permitted to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops with approval under the USDA Organic act.

Then European laws must be tighter.

Yes, in the US organic produce actually usually has more pesticide residue in it, although they are likely to be bacteria based rather than petroleum based, but the Organic Foods Act doesn't mean any of the things that most folks think it does, not these days with all the exceptions that have been written in over the years.

European laws for any kind of produce bear no resemblance to those here, I fear. Y'all still have way more respect for food (biologique or not) than we do.

Truth in advertising - that's what it's all about. If that costs more, then so be it. However, the cynic in me expects the food manufacturers to find ways around the law if it's ever passed.

I do see foods labeled non-gmo. I guess there's no law against that. Any more, I assume everything is gmo unless labeled non-gmo.

Sally

Some of the farmers at farmers' markets here tell bigger whoppers than agribusiness. Kosher butchers cheat and you'd think they'd have the most reason not to. Acting against self-interest takes a great deal of spine and fortitude and a willingness to accept the consequences. That kind of strength of character used to be perceived as common in the U.S., but I think that was a cultural sensibility that didn't actually reflect reality. People have feet of clay.

OTOH, there are many who are passionate about doing good who count the intangible goods on their bottom lines, who don't lie and cheat, and who don't think the minimal standard is good enough. The big tentpole of USDA Organic allows for imperfection. There are growers and makers who strive for much better than that. The issue is knowing exactly what you're getting, label or no.

I do know several small farmers who refuse to be certified as "organic" because they feel that is misleading as American standards allow the use of many . They will instead label their products as "pesticide free" or "produced in an organic manner" or something similar. They are always happy to tell anyone who asks about their growing methods. Most will employ biological controls, like predator insects, or mechanical devices like my "fake apples" brushed with a sticky substance that traps coddling moths. The bigger corporation farms will spray and dust more regularly, as they have the equipment to do so. Not all "natural pesticides" are harmless to humans, as once thought, and so things like rotenone, which is derived from plant sources like jicama vine has been found to kill fish and is "mildly" harmful to humans. Whatever that means, one would think it was harmful or not.

However, if an item is labelled "organic", it will, at least at this point, be GMO free.

Annie

I've worked at an organic nursery for 20 years. The pesticides we sell range from completely non-toxic to questionable because they're too new to really know how toxic they are. (My opinion, not based on anything other than it's only been on our shelves a few years now.) Spinosad is one of the active ingredients that fits that category. It's a big seller because it kills fire ants and caterpillars. At first they said it doesn't kill beneficials. Now they say it's toxic to bees. What will they say next?

The major problem with getting certified to grow organic produce or anything, is that it's cost/time prohibitive. We get our vegetables and herbs from local growers that are not certified organic, but don't use products, (pesticides or other) they don't have to because it's too expensive to use them if they are not needed. Most of the time they're not needed. We can't tell our customers that the veggies are organic, but they probably are, by default.

Sally