Too Much to Ask?

I think there is plenty of information on the packages..........except for one thing.

They need to indicate whether genetically modified ingredients are in there, and if so, I would go one step further and require them to have a website listed that detailed the modifications that were made, including a chemical analysis and possible side effects.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/70447#newcomments

I remember reading about Monsanto suing a company that wanted to label their food "NON-GM". To my recollection, the little guy won. That was a few years back (2008 or 9 I think). I find it interesting that "non-gm" labeling hasn't caught on more. Whether or not GM foods are actually bad doesn't matter, IMO we here in America are all about fads. Non-fat, low-fat, fat-free, low carb, zero calorie, sugar free, high fibre, etc, etc, etc. That alone would makes me think the Non-GM labeling would catch on quick.

I'd agree with you on package labeling though, I'd like to see how much of the food out there is GM.

From looking at some of the links on the GMO thread, it very well could be most of it. If GM foods are that great, I'd think they'd be bragging about it on the labels.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think the public is skeptical and would buy non-GM if given the option (I think about how large the "organic" craze has caught on). So wouldn't it be in a company's best interest to market their products as such (if what they sell is non-GM, that is).

I found your answer. I'll post it on the GMO thread too, if anyone is interested.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/nongmolabel112205.cfm

With my blood pressure as high as it is, salt is an issue. I have found that the package info is VERY useful. On the other hand, I question the value of many of the other materials I see listed on the packages. It takes a VERY educated consumer to know why we "enrich" flour. (so you don't get pallegra, thats why! And if you don't know what pallegra is, well, thank your health department and the FDA! )

Why are the regulators demanding nutritional information be of a certain size? Well, if you don't demand that, the retailers will print the information as small as possible as inconspicuously as possible. Why do you not want to read the "ingredients"? Are they not proud of what they put into their products?

Our regulators are hired by us to monitor the food supply, and to guide the consumer. They are rarely interested in limiting big businesses, to make it difficult to sell products, or to prevent dangerous materials from getting onto supermarket shelves. It is left to the consumer to make that choice, and therefore labeling regulations exist. So the veiled unasked question the OP posited in the post is easily answered...there is still not enough information, and the manufacturer has to provide the information to the consumer.

A really good suggestion I have noted lately would be portable computer apps which can scan the bar codes, and come up with answers "on the spot". So when your kid asks you "Daddy, what is polysorbate 60?", you can tell her what it does. and why it is there. Of course, I would like to see more info, like, is it good for me, is it necessary, am I paying more than I should for this chemical, or whatever, but you run the risk of brain overload by just walking into the super market. In this modern age of information, we have a choice...either "trust the government" to keep poisons out of our food supply, or "trust the consumer to read a package to decide if what is inside that package is good for him".

I know which option I prefer.

Even as a kid, I thought that twinkies were the most disgusting item out there, along with that whole line of snacks and cakes...................yuck!!!

you can tell her what it does, pretty interesting reading, thanks. I've had this burning question every time I turn the water on to water my garden, "Who supplies the water to these Organic Gardener's"? Do they use untreated well water that's guaranteed to be 'free of pesticides'? Also,when I lived in Fresno, Ca. I would see these huge Strawberry Farms, with their workers in the fields, and no out-houses, (porta-potties), is that "Organic Farming" too?

Nutrition info on packages is helpful but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find cooking instructions amidst all the other printing on food packages. ..........Ed Weldon

How would like to have to print all the ingredients and cooking instructions on an apple?

You shouldn't be allowed to print any claims that are false or unproven, but other than that, maybe it ought to be open season, driven by the market.

I presume you are talking about a plain ordinary apple off a tree which grows domestically in an environment which does not use pesticides, herbicides, and waxes. On the other hand, if you don't know where it came from, how do you know what is in it? But lets suppose it is a plain apple...from the farmer's market up the road. Yeah, we already have that information available....the "grade".

Every apple I get right now has a sticker on it, which normally established where it was grown and the grade. Though I admit it might pose some logistics problems to get the information into your hands, such information exists some where. After all, every fruit has chemicals which might have health benefits or detriments....bananas have a lot of salt in them and can be dangerous to high blood pressure patients, almonds have a certain amount of cyanide which give them their distinctive bitter almondy flavor, cherries have medicine in them which alleviate my gout, and the vitamin mix is different from fruit to fruit. That being said, such information should be available in other formats providing the fruit is reasonably pure. A "grade" should be good enough...because a grade would imply a testing proceedure to establish if not to ensure purity, and you can examine the test results on line if required.

But what if it is not pure? When it is not pure, it may be adulterated with anything from sulphur to hydrogenated vegatable oil to wax. Was that apple you ate last week waxed? Most are you know. Is the wax they use good for you? How do you know? Do you think that waxed fruit should be labeled as "waxed"? Or should we just take the grower's and distributors word for it that they are using food safe waxes?

I ate a small bowl of raisins a few years ago which nearly killed me....they had been sprayed with a preservative which had become concentrated in the drying. A friend of mine was poisoned with paraquat which was in the spice which he overused when he made a tea. These are examples of adulterants which are quite common. I spat out a bottle of home made dandelion wine (in a contest no less!) because it had been made from 24D contaminated dandelion flowers. These examples are not malicious, yet they WERE dangerous. I use them only because I had personal experience with them. You can no doubt come up with others. Remember the contaminated dog food a few years ago which killed thousands, possibly millions of pooches?
It should be incumbent upon the distibutor or the grower to do the testing for contaminents and additives, and then provide the information to the consumer.

I dunno...I DO laugh a bit when I see a package of peanuts with the warning label on them stating "may contain traces of nuts", because I think the nanny state may just be interfearing too much with darwin, but still, I don't think it is a bad thing or even a pointless exercise. Rather, I think it is a good habit to get into. And NO, I do NOT think it would be a drain on the economy!

As long as companies are mandated by law to act in the best interests of the shareholders, rather than the consumer, there needs to be transparency and external oversight.

When will they list "MEAT GLUE" on the label?

Seen recently on a bag of peanuts: "Warnng - this product contains nuts."

Is that nuts or what?

It's a little nuts. On the other hand, some people have wicked peanut allergies that can even kill them. So I can understand the label on non-peanut foods, that says, "Processed on machinery that also processes peanuts", or something like that.

A peanut is not a nut. It is a legume or member of the bean family.

For me it's a case of less is more.

I would like to leave the nutritional information off of product like Hostess, M&M's, Big League Chew, Doritos, and Captain Crunch, Chip's Ahoy, Coca Cola, and Kool Aid..

Fun stuff to eat, but it will damage you greatly and swiftly(like heroine?) if this is where the bulk of your diet is coming from.

Something is not "food" shouldn't treated as such..

I would support a "NOT FOOD" label that listed ingredients.

I think you've got it...............just a, "This is bad for you", label.

Hasn't slowed down the sale of cigarettes.

The best health insurance is educating one's self in nutrition. Labels are meant to allow consumers to make an intelligent choice when choosing what to include in their diet.

The common sense approach is a good starter. Eat as close to the natural form of a food as possible. (i.e., corn is healthier than corn chips). The more a food substance becomes "processed" the less value it has for one's body, in general. And, in fact, there is evidence that these forms are harmful. (You can find dozens of links, but here's one of the first I just found with a quick search.)

From that perspective a food label isn't as necessary as one would think. But I would agree with kramarat, that knowing whether or not a food is GMO or not, is important. I don't think there are definitive studies available to settle the controversial matters surrounding them. And don't expect to see them any time soon. So consumers should always be given the choice to avoid them or not. And you can't if you don't know about it. I think a large percentage of corn is GM. More and more soy is, also. I would think GMO's would have to be approved by the FDA or the Dept. of Agriculture. But chasing down which sources are used by any food packing company may not be so easy. If labeling doesn't require it, a food processing company may be reluctant to disclose that the source is GMO because of the controversy.

...FooD Inc. had some interesting comments on GMO and farming in general..