Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by fenson76

Are you saying that they don't have people that buy the corn on their behalf or are you saying that their buyers get it in a dark alley? Of course they know where the corn is from. As far as I know, all that stuff has to be tracked for disease purposes.

Corn is sold by farmers to brokers who consolidate shipments from different farms and sell the grain.

Is the source of each shipment tracked? I don't know if it is or not. But even if it is, the requirement to keep the two separate (GMO vs. non) in transport, storage, and milling is sure to add expense. And legal risk.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Yes it is complex but it's also well documented and it's not hard to track the GMO products from their source. It's not like it has to be some super serious "war on GMO's", they already have everything they need to start labeling what they know are GMO products.

My counter to this would be nuts in products.

Some products that don't even have any nuts still carry a warning that it may contain traces of nuts.

That's because they share production machinery and despite their best efforts, nuts still get through.

GMO is no different. Even now, products with no GMO in them are probably sharing machinery that has had GMO pass through.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What's the difference between labeling non-GMO and GMO? It's the same exact concept.

Not quite.
If required to label a product which may have GMO material there is no choice in the acceptance of liability if there is a mistake.

If a voluntary non-GMO label is applied it means the producer chooses to accept the liability.

Why would a producer take the chance if it entails both higher costs and liability.

I think that voluntary labeling of non-GMO product is a viable idea. It's like "organic" labeling.
I think that requiring label of products that may contain GMOs is, at best pointless, and at worse counterproductive.

reply to post by Phage

It seems that the consumer won't be any better informed about what has GMO and what doesn't because everything is likely to have the label on it.

Yes nearly everything will have a label on it because almost everything contains some form of GMO's these days (in the US and some other Western nations at least). That is probably the main reason why these companies don't want the labels imo.

reply to post by Phage


Required labeling of products that are known to be GMO isn't a liability though.

If they know it's GMO, they know it's GMO, and they should be required to label it that way so that the consumer knows what it is they are eating. If the consumer doesn't care one way or the other, they will buy it either way, but if they do care they should have that option.

Labeling isn't a dumb idea unless you think informed decisions are dumb too.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

GMO is no different. Even now, products with no GMO in them are probably sharing machinery that has had GMO pass through.

They are only so careful with the nut warnings because some people are severely allergic to nuts. I doubt many people are going to be worried about traces of GMO's in their food, what they really care about knowing is if their food is actually a GMO product or not.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Isn't the point that some people think GMOs are poison?

But if labels are put on everything (to avoid legal liability) how will we know if it has GMOs or not?
A producer would be stupid to take the risk unless they were absolutely sure about it.

So, wouldn't it make more sense to just forget about mandatory labeling which won't really provide any real information other than "everything in this store might have GMO material"?
Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage the use of non-GMO labeling in the same manner as organic products?

We don't see "non-organic" labels. What's the point of "may have GMO" labels?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Labeling isn't a dumb idea unless you think informed decisions are dumb too.

What choice is there when every bag of tortillas says "may contain GMO"?
Because that's what's gonna happen.

this just to backup my post on page one.

“Growing crops for Del Monte is really a partnership. It’s a longtime effort.” —Steve Balling, Director, Agricultural and Analytical Services Del Monte® fruits and vegetables are raised on farms that altogether span thousands of acres of land. And although we don’t own any of these farms, we support and partner with our growers in several important ways. “We require that any new variety be tested for at least three years in our research plots.” — Steve Balling We provide growers with seeds for all sorts of vegetables, including peas, corn, spinach, carrots, beets and Blue Lake, Italian green and wax beans. Vegetables we developed naturally to be tastier, more nutritious, disease resistant, higher yielding and easier to harvest.

i wonder if this means the use gmo's seeds.

Without pesticides, fruits and vegetables would be hard to get and enormously expensive. But we help our growers use the least amount possible by applying the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a commonsense approach to pest control. We provide them with pest-resistant varieties whenever possible. And we ask them to rotate their crops, which controls soil insects.

Del Monte Down On The Farm



so it is plain to see that del monte knows excactly whats in their food. and they can't say that if they use gmo's that it came from somewhere else.
if they do indeed use gmo's then, labeling it for them as far as not knowing shouldn't be a problem.


ETA" i just sent them a email asking if they use gm seeds, i'll post reply if i recive one.
also here is green gaints page that says they have their own growers.

Green Gaint

reply to post by Phage


It would have a great effect. It may even, eventually have a huge impact on the whole GMO industry. If fewer people bought the GMO labeled product, the price would go up. Then, because of such high prices, fewer would buy it, price goes up a bit more, fewer buy.......................

I think it's just best for people who can. Grow there own food. With the way things are now a days it's the safest bet to ensure a healthy diet. Although growing enough food to sustain you and your family through the seasons would be expensive and tedious. The common working man just can't do it. So what do they do about the gmos? I guess all we can do is wait and see if anyone dies from it. It's what the gov. is doing. I bet you!

This is a great example of why thinking that science, is simply a series of lab experiments, is a flawed view of the responsibility and accountability wound up in the decisions involved in science.

These value chain models, showing the cost of labeling potentially allergenic product, the net loss in US Exports to consuming nations who would refuse to accept the new food, and the increases in seed and other crop treatment costs, and the increase in costs of the post harvest production chain... AND, yes, the Risk...

all of these needed to be considered fully in REAL analytics, before the GM Crop was released into the food chain.

Instead we did some placeholder 90 day lab studies and called it good. THAT, was the dumb idea.

reply to post by Phage


If the tortilla chips are on the shelf with "non-GMO" stamped on them, that means it went through some kind of test to certify it is non-GMO. The test takes out any guess work.

The EU has a test they use to see if it's GMO or not, so they would know one way or another.

reply to post by DAVID64

It would have a great effect. It may even, eventually have a huge impact on the whole GMO industry.

Maybe it would. But there are already a lot of items listed on packages that some people consider to be poison. Hell, many people consider anything non-organic to be poison. That doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in the sales of non-organic products.

Monsanto cites concerns about labelling giving the idea that GMOs are dangerous or not as healthy as non-GMOs. I can see their point (not supporting it) but if all people see is boxes that say "May have GMO" on them (if they even bother to look) it doesn't seem that it would have any more effect than boxes that say "glycerol monostearate" on them.

Yes, some people might care, but when most people realize that the box that they have been buying all along costs 50 cents less than that other box, the one without the label (if they bother to look, but they won't) they aren't going to go read the label looking to see if it has a "GMO" label on it because they've been buying the same box for years without reading the label anyway.

And that other box will be more expensive because it will cost more to monitor the entire supply and production process and it will cost more because if someone really wants to risk not putting a GMO label on the box their insurance company is going to make them pay for it.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The EU has a test they use to see if it's GMO or not, so they would know one way or another.

Yes. And the EU has changed their standards because the test is not accurate enough to really show if there were GMO materials in a product. So now they have to track the supply chain. Which will make it more expensive.

In many cases, enforcing these labelling regulations can no longer be done with the food itself. Protecting consumers from fraud demands a much greater investment of energy and resources than with the proof-based system.

www.gmo-compass.org...
What do you think "energy and resources" means?

It should also be noted that there is a significant difference in the scale of the problem between the US and the EU.

We always hear about the right of the "consumer" to know what he's eating. What we don't talk about nearly enough is the responsibility of the human being to know what he's eating and how it affects him. We live in a society comprised of people who have absolved themselves of their personal responsibility to exercise their own intelligence in making decisions about what they put into their bodies. "Let the experts figure it out."

Of course, the inevitable result of informing yourself (rather than relying on others, whose motives are unknown, to do it for you) what your food is and where it's coming from is the frustrating realization that you're taking a risk every time you go to the store and buy any of the industrial garbage they sell, no matter what label is on it.

By the way, just because there's a label on something doesn't mean they're telling the truth. If you didn't pick the plant or kill the animal yourself, you're gambling. And that says a whole lot more about the world we live in than any sticky label can.

reply to post by Phage
I see this being implemented as so was the amount of labeling, or may contain or made on equipment that has Peanuts, nuts , never read them till my GF is Diabetic now I look at them, as far as GMO, I for one would like to know if my guts will explode or not! GMO is not good for you at all this food stuff needs to be band. when they start putting GMO in a can of tuna will starve.... . well ill be, of to find shovel to dig my own hole. What we can do know is be aware of our food and what we eat

reply to post by Phage

So how does this result in a better informed consumer?

Because I can be informed that it either does or does not have GMO products, and gladly choose to pick up an another item...

Are you being woefully ignorant or just obtuse?

Most of these companies make huge profits, and can easily afford the costs involved in labeling. The costs involved would not be significant once implemented thoughout the food industy, and it's very clear that this aspect is simply being used a propaganda tool, to put consumers off the idea of labeling.
A "may contain GMO" label would actually work rather well, because the requirement to use it would force many food companies away from GMO use altogether, rather than have their products rejected by a large percentage of consumers. That would result in more choice for the consumer, which can only be a good thing.

I want to know if I am eating GMOs. I don't want to be a part of the guinea pig society to find out if they are safe. I have successfully lived 3 years beyond my expiration date, according to the doctors, because of the changes we made in our diet, which is now wholly organic. The doctors all wanted to know what we were doing because I wasn't following the usual course of my disease.

GMOs cause inflammation. GMOs cause reproductive problems. GMOs seem to cause allergies. The release of GMOs exactly tracks many of the upsurges in many diseases. Why would any sane person want to take the risk?

After a couple of years, there is no increase in yield. More pesticides must be used than on non GMO plants. There is no cost savings. There is no advantage to the consumer and several disadvantages to the guinea pigs. Let the market decide if they want GMOs. If you can't agree with that, then you are saying the dictatorship should start with the food we eat, they will tell us, force us, to eat what they decide. Uh, no.