You seem to be in favour of ignorance. The thing you are trying to ignore is People want to know!
When it comes to food no lets be more general and apply this to products in general.
place of origin - people like to support their local economy or enjoy a product from a particular region for example champagne from france or a watch from Switzerland. You might prefer Texas beef to Argentinian or Brazillian Beef.
The Organic label i am fine with that, I don't tend to buy organic food it usually costs more but there are definitely people who do and organic food also tends to be less wasteful of food as sizing is a lot looser than with your standard supermarket sizes,
Potato's can be from marble sized to a good pound or two in weight. I personally have no issue with having a single potato to peel (its quicker and there is less peel).
There are vast numbers of vegetables which go to waste if they do not match the supermarkets size guidelines. If we are talking about yield and costs to produce shouldn't we also look at sizes and blemishes, such as cracked onion skins.
Eggs can be free-range, organic, barn raised or factory farmed. do you care? maybe not. With chicken diet makes a difference, corn fed chicken has a yellow tinge to the meat and there is more meat on the bone too.
GM is another choice people want to make the same as they can look at a pack of sausages and see the E numbers they are free to choose to buy or not to buy. My personally most disliked phrase on a pack of burgers "Mechanically reclaimed meat" I also look at fat content and sugar content oh and water content too and soya content too.
I would also like to know the company producing the products name, I will not buy Sony for example a bias fairly commonly shared on Slashdot. I also will not buy from Smithfield meat or Japanese Tuna. I'd rather buy Irish Beef instead of British and support my local farmers. Your biases may vary.
My dad is allergic to gluten, want to make him ill just give him food with flour in it. It's quite handy for him to have gluten free labels on food. People do want to know what they are buying and GM is one of the things people want to know about GM crops maybe cheaper to produce due to bigger yields and less reliance on chemical fertilizers so let the price reflect that. Same with irradiated food and uht milk.
If you want to encourage people to buy GM food then first you need to give people the choice, people need to be aware that there are people eating GM food with no ill effects and that GM foods are as tasty as the non GM version if not more so. You are not going to gain acceptance of GM foods by flat out refusing to say which products are GM and which are not. By hiding the GM status of a food product you invite suspicion, if your being too cagey people will be convinced there is something wrong with GM food.
GM food needs to be marketed as such or it will always have a stigma attached to it. But lets not ignore the real reason for not labelling GM as GM. Sales would tank and corporations would lose money and who pays for the Government, Corporate Industry. In another thread there were snarky comments about people who boycott Sony (do you think Sony cares) maybe they do, maybe not, but its clear that there is an industry terrified of the fall out over GM labelling.
Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/UXIvazLuxN4/story01.htm
49ers vs giants giants vs 49ers san francisco 49ers san francisco 49ers sf 49ers joe paterno died 49ers game
Continuing his crusade against energy drinks on the front page of today's?New York Times,?business reporter Barry Meier notes?that the special ingredients in products like Red Bull, Monster Energy, and 5 Hour Energy don't seem to do much of anything. Based on "interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies," he says, the energy delivered by these drinks comes mainly from the caffeine, as opposed to the taurine, B vitamins, or other scientific-sounding additives:
As Meier explains, "The drinks are now?under scrutiny?by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels." He is referring to adverse event reports received by the Food and Drug Administration, which show only that someone experienced a symptom (or said they did) after consuming a product, not that the latter caused the former. Furthermore, the number of reports involving energy drinks is quite small compared to reports involving other widely consumed over-the-counter products. The "scrutiny" Meier mentions was prompted largely by his own alarmist coverage of the issue, which glossed over the fact that coffee contains more caffeine per ounce than energy drinks do.
Gaspare Campari invented his famous potion in 1860 by infusing sixty herbs, spices, barks and fruit peels in a mixture of alcohol and distilled water. It became a sensation, and Campari turned into an entrepreneur. There?s only one problem: Campari is bitter, and human beings have taste receptors for bitterness that function as an early warning system, alerting us that we are about to consume something that might be toxic or poisonous.
Mark Spivak is an award-winning writer specializing in wine, spirits, food, restaurants and culinary travel. He was the wine writer for the Palm Beach Post from 1994-1999, and since 2001 has been the Wine and Spirits Editor for the Palm Beach Media Group, as well as the restaurant critic for Palm Beach Illustrated. His work has appeared in National Geographic Traveler, Robb Report, Ritz-Carlton, Continental, Art & Antiques, Newsmax, Dream of Italy and Arizona Highways. From 1999-2011 he hosted Uncorked! Radio, a highly successful wine talk show on the Palm Beach affiliate of National Public Radio.