Hi 44° | Lo 23°

Letter: Food labeling bill would impose crushing costs

Although it’s framed as a matter of transparency, our state legislators will soon have to take a position on a bill that would impose crushing costs on small businesses across New Hampshire – and on the state itself!

This legislation, mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods, is supported by people who tell a story unsupported by facts. Their claims to the contrary, genetically modified ingredients are safe for people and help to responsibly feed Americans, using less water and less fertilizer than non-GM crops. That means the food that’s more affordable for hardworking families in New Hampshire and across the country. Our legislators should make decisions based on science – and what’s best for our state – and oppose this bill that would impose heavy new costs on small businesses and New Hampshire.



Legacy Comments3

Looked at in another perspective, what's wrong with complete, open honesty when it comes to food labels? Why can corporate America get away with listing "natural flavorings" as an ingredient without having to divulge what that means exactly? This is just 1 of many examples that can be cited. Targeting only GM food ingredients, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough. We have the right to know what is in the food we eat. Anyone who argues to the contrary on any grounds-especially "crushing costs" (what a load of dung) is wrong.

Really wish some of those people would explain the ""crushing costs"" that business will incur. We keep hearing that phrase. Almost all printing is done digitally now days. You change the image on your monitor and send off the new label to a printer or many smaller companies print their own labels. Most larger companies use ink jet sprayers to mark product on the conveyor line, this is a simple reformat of the print material on the machine or from a disk. Multiple formats can be stored so once a new image is made a simple push of the button changes the wording....... As far as the GMO labeling, it would easier to list all the food that has not been modified. Man has been doing this for a long time, its called crossbreeding plants. What is new is the term "genetically modified", sounds so , so scientific and evil. GMO = Cross Pollination

A September 2013 Kai-Robertson study on the cost of labeling GE products has demonstrated there will be no increased costs to consumers for labeling GMOs. Dr.Donald Huber of Purdue has studied pesticides for 40 years. Check out his recently posted, hour-long YouTube interview or any of the shorter videos found at that location. No matter what you google about GE products, you will find there is no consensus they are safe. Not until 2012 was a long term study done on products so dissimilar to conventional foods that they are patented. Farmers using such seed must sign a contract stating they will not save the seed [making them market captive] nor share the seed for experimentation. In a 1992 meeting at the White House-- rather than a Congressional hearing so public records would be kept-- the FDA chose to accept the word of producers of GE products that their products are ‘substantially equivalent’ to naturally grown products. In 2001 there were so many internal complaints that the FDA stated they would create guidelines for voluntary labeling. We are still waiting for that to happen and the FDA still does no independent testing. Finally, a worldwide 2011 study of pesticides and herbicides indicated in the long run more are required and we have seen the development of super weeds and resistant rootworms. With these environmental and health concerns, and evidence that cost will not increase, don't NH residents deserve the labeling to make informed buying decisions. Maureen Mann Prime sponsor HB660

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.