如果转基因食品贴标签会造成食品价格普遍上涨， 请选择您支持贴标签的涨价上限。

[胡说芝]

如果立法了消费者将必然承担有关成本。 并且真正考验通过食品检验标准的转基因食品的市场接受度。 这正是反转派不愿意承认的。

我们应该创造一些条件让反转者去选择他们想吃的东西。 因为如果真的有很多人恐转，他们一定会因为标签转向organic。这样因为规模市场价格将发生调整， 也才能真正体现转基因到底有没有自身的价格优势

博士，Organic与非转是两个不同标签，非转的可以是用化肥激素农药种植出来的
贴个非转标签，可以让恐转人士消除心理恐惧，确保吃进肚子的食品没有转基因成分，否则搞得他们不敢买加拿大超市的加工食品了

 

[9981]

博士，Organic与非转是两个不同标签，非转的可以是用化肥激素农药种植出来的
贴个非转标签，可以让恐转人士消除心理恐惧，确保吃进肚子的食品没有转基因成分，否则搞得他们不敢买加拿大超市的加工食品了

对， 我前面这么说混淆了概念。总之是用标签的方式区别开一点都不转和有转， 对吧。 如果要细分的话那就加成分含量。

反正你已经选择了不支持贴标签了。大家都理解了。

 

[9981]

还是现实点吧。
给转基因食品贴标签没有因贴签造成食品涨价，这已经是多国事实证明的。
给非转食品贴签，也不是不可以，但是否会造成食品涨价，目前还不知道，何必冒险？难道转基因科学家非得做大多数人民的敌人才舒服？

我支持给转基因食品贴标签。

“93 percent of respondents saying that foods containing such ingredients should be identified.

Three-quarters of Americans expressed concern about genetically modified organisms in their food, with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health. ”

http://bbs.comefromchina.com/threads/1309257/#post-8418104

既然你不觉得贴标签会影响食品价格， 你可以无论多少代价都支持贴标签， 对吧。

目前为止， 本坛著名的反转派无人参与投票。十分有趣。

 

[ccc]

支持给转基因食品贴标签。

你是想涨价,是吧?

 

[ccc]

谢谢各位支持， 请踊跃投票， 发表意见。

我当然同意热狗的意见更容易落实。但是这样做对反转派的利益有点不公平， 凭什么要给我们选择的东西增加程序和成本。是转基因公司自己弄出来的事情， 每个公司都应该对产品成分透明化。所以我才这么建议。

村长， 涨价是我个人的看法， 多了很多工序啊， 所有的零售店也会增加相应的程序成本。但是我认为即使有涨价也是短期的. 一旦规矩出来成熟以后， 市场会追求效率和降低成本的。

我看成"非转"了,呵。让他们非转贴去吧，涨价才好。

 

[reine02]

既然你不觉得贴标签会影响食品价格， 你可以无论多少代价都支持贴标签， 对吧。

目前为止， 本坛著名的反转派无人参与投票。十分有趣。

说给转基食品贴标签会导致食品价格上涨，根本没有根据。
从世界上已经实行了转基因食品贴标签的国家看，也没有因给转基因贴标签导致食物价格上涨的先例。
对于毫无根据的东东，你设置的投票毫无意义。

 

[ottawa_it_blue_collar]

投了，食品成份标签早已经有了，文字改动会增加多少成本？

 

[臭农民]

为什么没有0％的选项呢？

 

[Chiffon]

爱博士，我觉得网友的关注焦点不是贴标签这个政策。因为即使不贴标签，大家对哪些食品是转基因的已经清楚了。

我认为你的问题如果改为这样比较有现实意义。：如果有保证非转基因的食品，其他方面一样，你愿意多花多少钱？比如说转基因大豆油vs非转基因大豆油，转基因玉米vs非转基因玉米。

 

[9981]

爱博士，我觉得网友的关注焦点不是贴标签这个政策。因为即使不贴标签，大家对哪些食品是转基因的已经清楚了。

我认为你的问题如果改为这样比较有现实意义。：如果有保证非转基因的食品，其他方面一样，你愿意多花多少钱？比如说转基因大豆油vs非转基因大豆油，转基因玉米vs非转基因玉米。

谢谢各方面的建议。 对于我的选项不当之处， 敬请包涵。

只能一步一步来吧。 我内心里其实是相当同情反转消费者的， 所以才想看看能不能做点事情带来变化。

从这个调研的反映我大概的推论是， 反转派的选项是， 转基因食品贴标签， ０ 涨价到５％涨价。

现有的非转基因产品如果不贴标签， 我觉得应该没有价格影响吧。只是不知道选择到底有多少

 

[reine02]

谢谢各方面的建议。 对于我的选项不当之处， 敬请包涵。

只能一步一步来吧。 我内心里其实是相当同情反转消费者的， 所以才想看看能不能做点事情带来变化。

从这个调研的反映我大概的推论是， 反转派的选项是， 转基因食品贴标签， ０ 涨价到５％涨价。

现有的非转基因产品如果不贴标签， 我觉得应该没有价格影响吧。只是不知道选择到底有多少

反转的没事。
挺转喜欢吃转的却危机重重。这周对挺转的又有三个不好的消息。
喜欢吃转的要抓紧了，趁着还有，能吃就多吃点吧！

Monsanto's Very Bad Week: 3 Big Blows for GMO Food
Friday, 25 October 2013 12:26 By Ocean Robbins, AlterNet | Op-Ed

It hasn't been a good week for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry.

Just three days ago, Mexico banned genetically engineered corn. Citing the risk of imminent harm to the environment, a Mexican judge ruled that, effective immediately, no genetically engineered corn can be planted in the country. This means that companies like Monsanto will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country's borders.

At the same time, the County Council for the island of Kauai passed a law that mandates farms to disclose pesticide use and the presence of genetically modified crops. The bill also requires a 500-foot buffer zone near medical facilities, schools and homes -- among other locations.

And the big island of Hawaii County Council gave preliminary approval to a bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit biotech companies from operating on the Big Island.

But perhaps the biggest bombshell of all is now unfolding in Washington state. The mail-in ballot state's voters are already weighing in on Initiative 522, which would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Knowing full well that 93 percent of the American public supports GMO labeling, and that if one state passes it, many others are likely to follow, entrenched agribusiness interests are pulling out all the stops to try to squelch yet another state labeling effort.

This time, however, things aren't going quite as planned. On Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Feguson filed a lawsuit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA, a lobby for the junk food industry, has been by far the largest donor to efforts to defeat the labeling initiative. The lawsuit alleges that the GMA illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors.

The source of the money has now been exposed, and it turns out to be Pepsico, Coca-Cola, NestleUSA, General Mills and a few other junk food companies. The lawsuit reveals that GMA leadership held a series of secret meetings to plot how to perpetrate a money laundering scheme and illegally hide member donations from Washington state voters, in direct violation of campaign disclosure laws.

Unlike the junk food companies that feared consumer backlash, Monsanto hasn't even bothered to hide the more than $4 million the company has given to the "no" campaign. In fact, GMA, Monsanto and a handful of other corporate donors have now broken a state record by pouring more than $17 million into their effort to stop Washington's GMO labeling ballot initiative.

Voting is already underway in Washington, and the final ballots will be cast on November 5. The "yes" side is ahead in the most recent polls, but supporters of the right to know fear that a barrage of heavily funded and misleading ads could sour voters to the initiative.

They remember that just last year, California's Proposition 37 was well ahead in the polls until Monsanto and its allies spent more than $46 million on their campaign in the Golden State.

All this label fighting and money laundering leads to some very significant questions. Why are Monsanto and the junk food industry willing to spend many tens of millions of dollars every year trying to keep you in the dark about your food? What doesn't big food want you to know? And what are they afraid might happen if you did?

Monsanto tells us that their products are about the best thing to come along since sliced bread. For years they've been promising that GMOs would reduce pesticide use, increaseyields, reduce water consumption, and offer foods that are more tasty and more nutritious.

I wish they were right.

But in the 20 years since GMO crops first came on the market, studies have found that they have led to higher pesticide use, and no meaningful improvement in flavor, nutrition,yield or water requirements. Instead, what they've created are plants that are engineered to withstand massive dosing of toxic herbicides, and plants that function as living pesticide factories. Monsanto's Bt. corn, for example, is actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide.

With concern about GMOs growing fast, and with the public being pummeled with vast amounts of misinformation, there is a tremendous need for clear, accurate and reliable information about GMOs. In response, the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network and the Institute for Responsible Technology are co-sponsoring a free online GMO Mini-Summit. From October 25-27, some of the top GMO experts on the planet will be providing insights and clear calls to action in this teleseminar that is also being broadcast without charge on the Internet. Monsanto probably isn't too happy about the prospect of tens of thousands of people getting informed and mobilized. But if you love life, safe food, and the truth, then you might want to check it out.

And if you want to lend a hand to getting out the vote in the state of Washington, you cansign up to volunteer here.

Nobody knows what's going to happen in Washington between now and November 5. But from Mexico, to Hawaii and to the 64 nations that already have GMO labeling, this tide just might be turning.

Maybe we, the people, do get a say in what we know, and what we eat, after all.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19632-monsantos-very-bad-week-3-big-blows-for-gmo-food