Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
>
> In article >, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:20:18 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > > "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...99s-gmo-labeli
> > >>> ng-l
> > >>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
> > >>
> > >> how does more info limit choice?
> > >
> > > Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
> > > some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be
> > > to
> > > such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
> > > part.
> >
> > Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> > of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> > conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> > or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> > have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> > to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> > crowd.
> >
> > -sw
>
> which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
> farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting

More likely it will prove once again that there is a small minority who
will pay more to support niche non-GMO products, while the vast majority
simply want affordable food and don't give a rats ass what that minority
thinks of GMOs. This has been pretty well proven in the organic vs.
non-organic space.