[idanman]

It sounds suspiciously odd that people want to boycott information. I understand if you don't care about whether a product is a GMO but to prevent other people from finding out and dictate to them what they can and cannot eat sounds elitist to me. I want to know where my food came from and make my own decision. This article smells of astroturfing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

[Fomite]

They want to boycott the non-information that the "Non-GMO" label comes with. It's hugely deceptive at times, and applied to food where there's no GMO-equivelent.

[cies]

Agree, volutary and for-cost non-GMO label does not do much good -- likely more harm as they are keen to point out.

The, IMHO, obvious fix is a mandatory "contains GMO" labeling. Which they obviously do not mention.

[idanman]

Its there [1] but if you read you can see that there are options that are really confusing the consumers and seem to be designed to obscure the truth. Using a QR code is a hassle to consumer trying to buy groceries. I want to see the pertinent information on the label. At the end of the day if you buy organic than you know its GMO free plus other benefits (if that's important to you). But that put some non-GMO sellers at a disadvantage because they don't want to go through the extra cost of obtaining an organic certificate.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/23/senat...

[hx87]

IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either. If I'm going to be notified that something is GMO, at least tell me what modifications were made. If it takes up too much space, then slap on a QR code or something.

[cies]

> IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either.

Well I think it is our right to know. Doctoring with DNA? At least let me know. Period.