Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
6. That's from the article in your OP. Concerns about people not buying products out of fear.
Fri Sep 26, 2014, 02:00 AM
Sep 2014

They specifically used baby food and fat content as an example in which a parent might overreact and not buy something the infant needs for lack of understanding that kids need fat while developing.

In Connecticut, Beau Kjerulf Greer, professor of nutrition at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield pointed out:

A “right to know” argument is a common tenet of pro-GMO labeling arguments, but it is often in the interest of public health that people are protected from their own acquired misinformation. Fat grams are not listed on baby foods because parents may restrict their infant’s fat intake for perceived health effects, not understanding the necessity of high amounts of fat in the infant diet. And if the rationale for labeling is transparency for transparency’s sake, why not direct our limited resources to labeling arsenic levels in rice, mercury levels in fish or other contamination that actually has documented potential for harm? And do we really want to increase food costs for the poor via labeling because the upper middle class currently enjoys playing the role of armchair nutritionist?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»As state GMO labeling law...»Reply #6