Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by Kody27


which would also have the added benefit of gradually making GMO obsolete...

it would be phased out of the market, because as more people stopped buying products, the companies who make them would realize what the customers want. they'd be forced to change up the sources for their raw materials, and start picking up non-GMO materials....

as this happens, the demand for non-GMO raw materials for foodstuffs rises, and eventually, nobody will grow GMO crap anymore, because there will be no demand for it...

Dumb idea for sure.

Cigarette packs says "THIS WILL KILL YOU" and people still smoke.

dr judy carmen of flinders university australia she is associate professor there her team did a little study of pigs fed on gm foods against a non gm group read about it at responsible technology .org .

the gm group was 4 times more likely to be ill with stomach complaints etc think on that pigskin

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Are you being woefully ignorant or just obtuse?

You seem to have missed the point.
Mandatory labelling won't tell you if a product has GMO materials or not. It will be in the interest of the producers to label everything instead of taking the risk that there could be a mistake in the supply chain.

How does labeling everything tell you that something doesn't have GMO material?


"This product may contain GMO material". Very informative.

reply to post by Phage

My question is this. With the added expense and legal risk involved, isn't the simplest solution for the producer to simply put the "May contain GMO" label on everything? It seems that is the only way to avoid legal risk (and increased costs).

I think ambiguous labeling like that is what's caused our problem to begin with.

Between GMO's and the roughly 20 thousand chemical additives that aren't required to be on the label, by law, because they are considered 'trade secrets', it's clear that it's the businesses that profit from bad labeling laws.

Yes the cost will be passed to the consumer, that's a given with anything. That doesn't mean we should not enforce our right to know what we are eating, down to the very last detail.

If we pass labeling laws, and allow them to just generically place " may contain GMO products" like they do with peanuts for example, than the entire conversation and legislative debate is a waste of time.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by Kody27

 

which would also have the added benefit of gradually making GMO obsolete...

it would be phased out of the market, because as more people stopped buying products, the companies who make them would realize what the customers want. they'd be forced to change up the sources for their raw materials, and start picking up non-GMO materials....

as this happens, the demand for non-GMO raw materials for foodstuffs rises, and eventually, nobody will grow GMO crap anymore, because there will be no demand for it...

Riiiiight. just like cigarrettes became "phased out" after all the health warnings were added. They used to be used in advertisements in the 50's and 60's with doctors actually recommending smoking was good for your lungs!

Then the surgeon general warnings came out, and cigarrettes didn't really suffer, in fact they're more popular today than ever. The tobacco industry is still booming 50 years later.

reply to post by ColCurious

Well, they should know... else the owner of that factory would be in big trouble if his product was contaminated by anything really, not even necessarily GMOs.

I know fresh produce is tracked. I don't know if grain, especially processed grain is though. Does the corn meal the tortilla factory in California uses all come from a single source. Does the owner of the factory know where it all came from? All it would take one mistake in the chain and that tortilla factory is forced out of business.

The only logical thing for the factory to do is put the "may contain GMO" label on the package.

reply to post by Daedalus

if you believe GMO is fine, then go ahead and eat up, and stop trying to convince other people that your opinion is correct, and the only truth on the subject...

The safety of GMOs has nothing to do with the question.
You, and apparently most of the other contributors to the thread have entirely missed the point.

Mandatory labeling will not tell you which foods have GMO materials. It will tell you that most foods might have GMO materials.

Originally posted by Phage
How does labeling everything tell that something doesn't have GMO material?

"This product may contain GMO material". Very informative.

If all the mass produced foodstuff is labeled "May contain GMO" because the big boys can't be bothered to document their supply chain.

It then it opens the door for smaller, local, enterprises to produce foodstuffs with "Farm to Table" documentation.

Far from being dumb, it actually could be a job creator for small business.

Originally posted by alfa1
As a simple example, many people have mentioned in many threads, a problem they have with the idea of consuming the Bt toxin used with some GMO crops. But only a small percentage of GMO foods use this

This is simply not true, Bt transgenics resides at the heart of this debate. In fact, if you look at the chart below, Bt is the single largest ingested GMO element in the US.

But as well, we do not have the immunity system impacts observed yet of At and Vt (another bacteria and virus RNA)

The only significant exception to the bacterial/virus transgenic debate is in fact, HT - which is synonymous with Roundup tolerant. 'Stack' means both are used 100%

Bt = Bacillus thruringiensis bacterium gene
Canola Oil ........ HT
Corn .......................... Bt HT stack
Cottonseed Oil ............ Bt
Papaya ........... HT
Potato ........................ Bt
Soybeans ................... At HT stack
Squash ...................... Vt
Sugar beet ...... HT
Sweet peppers ............ Vt
Tomatoes ........ Enzyme

reply to post by instigatah

Originally posted by instigatah
In a way i hate to admit it but im kinda with Phage on this.....asking for MORE government involvement and regulation really isnt what im interested in.

I see your point and this is definitely a delicate issue.

I dislike too far-reaching governmental involvement into the markets myself BUT... even from a minarchistic point of view, to protect the people from deception or possibly even harm (fraud in the broadest sense) by having good product safety laws is one of the few legitimate and important government functions with regard to the markets IMO.

It would be even better if the people didn't need that protection of course, but as you stated yourself... unfortunately people are way too lazy / busy / uninformed for that.

reply to post by Phage


Are you suggesting that most foods these days already have GMOs in them?

If this is the case, is it just processed foods, or have our fruits, vegetables, nuts, and pulses also been contaminated?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

If we pass labeling laws, and allow them to just generically place " may contain GMO products" like they do with peanuts for example, than the entire conversation and legislative debate is a waste of time.

That's the idea, exactly.
Case in point, Proposition 37 in California. A labelling law which was voted down.
The claim is that the proposition failed because the stupid Californians were fooled by a massive campaign against labelling. I don't think Californian's are stupid (a little odd maybe, but not stupid).

Here is what the Proposition said:

The measure also requires that processed foods produced entirely or in part through genetic engineering be labeled with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

And it put the responsibility on who? The store.

Retailers (such as grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled. Products that are labeled as GE would be in compliance. For each product that is not labeled as GE, a retailer generally must be able to document why that product is exempt from labeling.

The Proposition was dumb. Why would a store take the risk of not labeling everything that just might have GMO materials in it?

But what is the way around it? The risk of contamination is there. So do you insert a clause which allows for accidental contamination? No. That won't work.
voterguide.sos.ca.gov...

A simple solution would be to allow non-GMO producers to label their products as such. The fact that they're not allowed to do so goes to show where our government's priorities lie.

reply to post by Bone75

A simple solution would be to allow non-GMO producers to label their products as such. The fact that they're not allowed to do so goes to show where our government's priorities lie.

That is the only solution. It is virtually the same idea as labeling organic products as organic.
But are you sure they are "not allowed" to?
www.nongmoproject.org...

reply to post by Phage


Well if we are discussing the California law, I have to admit after first supporting it blindly, I revoked my support after reading about the actual legislation.

I agree it's entirely stupid to put the risk on grocers as opposed to the food producers themselves and dumb to allow them to just generically stated " may contain".

I'd like something that made food labeling a requirement down to every ingredient, with the pressure put on those who create those products. To be hones the increase in cost for me is worth it to know what's in my food.

I understand food prices are already out of control but if there's one thing I'd pay for, knowledge is certainly one of them.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I'd like something that made food labeling a requirement down to every ingredient, with the pressure put on those who create those products. To be hones the increase in cost for me is worth it to know what's in my food.

I've never argued against labeling (I bet some would argue that) if the majority want it, do it. In the case of GMOs, I don't care. I don't think they are particularly harmful and there are far worse things in the food chain.

But the anti-GMO crowd just keeps saying "why not label it?" The reason is because it is not that simple. I've brought up just one of the problems with "just label it". Crafting a law that makes sense and places responsibility correctly is not a simple thing.

We know GMO materials are pervasive. Doesn't a voluntary, "non-GMO" labeling idea make a lot more sense?

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
Does the corn meal the tortilla factory in California uses all come from a single source. Do the owner of the factory know where it all came from?

I honestly have no idea how things are done in California.

I do remember that there was a case of fungus infestation in animal feed here once, and they were pretty quick in researching where the infestation started.

Originally posted by Phage
The only logical thing for the factory to do is put the "may contain GMO" label on the package.

If they are really not able to keep track of their component suppliers and supplies, then yes, I guess that would be the only option left for the factory.


*ETA: It would also be very sloppy and poor management on parts of the factory though, IMHO.
How could they ever validate guarantee claims towards their suppliers if needed?

reply to post by Phage

We know GMO materials are pervasive. Doesn't a voluntary, "non-GMO" labeling idea make a lot more sense?

A proper labeling law would take care of people on both sides of the aisle. Those who do GMO and those who don't.

You already know how much BS the Organic Labeling fiasco is in a lot of places.

I am worried about GMO's, but I agree that there is good science on either side of that argument. I guess time will be the deciding factor once more research is published and peer reviewed.

Then again, science these days seems like a money racket. Nobody wants to go against the grain anymore.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Then again, science these days seems like a money racket. Nobody wants to go against the grain anymore.

There has always been resistance in science to "going against the grain". (Isn't that what the phrase implies?)

It's built into the system. Hypotheses must have evidence. Evidence must be verified. That is what science is.