1
The GMO lobby's scare tactics involved telling California completely unfounded rumors of food prices skyrocketing if they were forced to disclose to the consumers what they are actually buying. Is that the way economics actually works however?
What is the economics 101 analysis of this situation? The GMO food producer places a mandatory label on his stuff. The consumer sees this label and notes how this GMO altered variety is less desirable than the non-GMO variety sitting next to it. The consumer uses his free will and free choice to choose the non-GMO natural variety to feed her family. How does this affect the price of the GMO foods in the real world? Will they go up? Rubbish. They will be less desired. In the parlance of the economists, the "demand" is reduced. With less "demand" comes less price.
The price goes down, not up. The only people concerned about GMO labeling affecting food prices are the corporations who produce them, who have voluntarily spent tens of millions of dollars to mislead California. They didn't spend these millions on behalf of consumers in order to keep prices down. Quite the opposite. They sell their defective, experimental "food like substances" which masquerade as the real thing, the natural product. If they were no longer allowed to hide under the cover of the natural product's name and image, the prices of these Frankenfoods would plummet! They would be quite difficult to sell, compared to real, natural, unadulterated crops. Their seeds would be rejected, as the crops produced with them would fetch less money than crops produced naturally. Monsanto et. al. would lose money and lots of it.
That's why they lie to you. That's their interest and motivation. What's yours?
1 | 2
