Slashdot Mirror
California Wants Genetically Modified Foods To Be Labelled
bbianca127 writes "In November, California will be voting on Proposition 37. The proposition would mandate putting labels on foods that have been genetically modified. While supporters of the proposition think that consumers deserve to know what they're eating, opponents call it 'anti-science' and have donated $25 million to defeating the measure. From the article: 'Unsurprisingly, the battle has gotten very expensive, very quickly. Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition. In comparison, the organic farmers and environmentalists who support the proposition have managed to raise less than a tenth of that total amount.'"
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
The GMO makers tout their products as being so safe and great, such benefit to humanity. They should proudly label their products: Contains GMOs! What's to fear!?! This isn't anti-science but pro-science.
Genes from animals? Genes from other plants? Genes inserted directly?
Where does 200+ years of cross breeding come in? Is that considered 'intelligent design' or genetic modification?
It isn't anti-science to know the ingredients, and their specifics, of what goes into the foods we eat. It is just the companies being concerned about giving away what could be harmful nutritional information. The lobbyists wail against it like children. This doesn't make any arguments against science.
So, this is what a totally free libertarian market looks like, huh? Big companies throwing temper tantrums at the very notion of consumer empowerment and scientists and government agents falling in line to soothe their wailing.
How about this? SIt down with the top food scientists in the United States, come up with every possible ingredient and fact about the contents of the food consumers should know, and then hire the top graphic designers to present this information in an organized and clear way.
Oh, what's that? You don't want to rustle Kraft and Dean Food's feathers? OK, forget it. Let's stick to our 1980s food labeling standards and continue eating anal glands with our vanilla wafer cookies in total blind ignorance.
Why proponents of GE are trying to stop (via outspending) those who promote informed consumer choice is beyond me. If GE really is beneficial then consumers will see the reduced prices of the food, notice the improvement in quality and associate those with GE. If GE turns out to be hazardous in some cases then an informed consumer is made responsible for their own decision (although, in the US this hardly seems to be a factor these days in lawsuits). What could possibly go wrong with labeling food?
...are required, so why not GMO labeling? It strikes me as the same thing. Why *wouldn't* you want to know exactly what is in the food you are eating?
What's more is that labeling GMO foods as such actually increases consumer access to information, which is one of the fundamental tenets of competition in the free market economy. The pseudo-conservative horde is always up in arms about labeling as being anti-free market when in fact the opposite is true.
I would rather think businesses would want to label whether or not the produce had any 'patented' genetic modifications applied to them. People ought to be able to know whether or not it might not be legal for them to plant any of the seeds in the produce, after all, if they have not bought a license for the intellectual property in question.
(For the irony impaired, the above comment is intended to contain at 20% of the RDA of iron.)
Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear
What..... that big business, agri or otherwise, has no problem withholding salient information from the public (even when they have the right to know) in the name of profit?
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed? If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants. If there are no differences or the modified plants prove to be healthier, then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
The agribusinesses are right, it is anti-science, and it is bullshit. In this case, the side with the truth also has the money. Imagine that.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this". It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Perhaps, if this measure were enacted, many people who are fearful of such technology will see just how much of our food is modified from its natural state, while causing no harm to said people. As long as the label was neutral (instead of "warning! GMO detected! Has caused cancer *when ingested in extreme amounts by laboratory mice*), it could actually serve to inform the public, instead of scare them.
There will always be those who reject technological advancement. Let them have their information.
Indeed, and many countries have labeling requirements that require GMO to be disclosed as well. Oddly enough, GMO sells poorly in those countries. No wonder they're fighting it here(where something like 70% of packaged food products have GMO ingredients)
Regardless of your stance on the health effects of GMOs, if would behoove us to look more closely at the business practices (specifically w.r.t. intellectual property) of the seed giants, i.e. Monsanto: patenting life, monopolizing the seed market, shaking down small farmers with patent infringement suits, and all so they can sell more Roundup, creating a monoculture of herbicides. It's the same corporate playbook we've seen countless times in the tech world.
We had herbicides before Roundup-ready GMOs. It ain't no huge innovation, aside from being a revenue win for Monsanto.
http://cenblog.org/cleantech-chemistry/2010/03/what-did-farmers-do-before-roundup/
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer - and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred. The US ostensibly practices free market economics, after all.
People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.
I find it odd on a site where so many bristle at the very idea of closed-source software that people are basically endorsing closed-source food production.
#DeleteChrome
Do you consider an ingredient label requirement on food products to be a "warning" or a "threat"?
Act 1: FDA-or-somebody: "Umm, ADM, your 'xeno-bites' brand genetically engineered cowroach burgers have absolutely no track record of safety testing..."
ADM: "Shut up, four-eyes, and go kill jobs somewhere else. We'll let the consumer decide what they feel comfortable eating."
FDA-or-somebody: "Um, ok."
Act 2: California: "Hey, the consumers want to know what ingredients are in food, so that they can exercise free choice and let the market decide between "Ammoniabeef, Piney-Fresh" and "Soylent X"!"
ADM-or-somebody "Shut up, bureaucratic busybody, all our products are safe and legal and the consumers would just worry their little heads about it if we were to tell them. In fact, tell that dirty hippie down the street that he isn't allowed to use the phrases 'GMO free', 'less than .01% zergling by weight', or 'minimally teratogenic' in advertisements!"
This basic back-and-forth is what annoys me so much about this brand of spat: When the regulators show up, health and safety regulations based on research are treated as a bunch of ivory-tower paternalism. When the customers show up demanding the data that they actually need to make their own choices(since they are justifiably somewhat doubtful that benevolent regulators have their backs on this one), they get a paternalistic rebuff and assurance that the previously neutered regulators are totally all over this one...
There are arguments enough against having it merely one way or the other; but handing the customer the shit end of both worlds is just plain crass.
All have been "modified" by grafting or cloning... How evil...
I'm guessing that "The ingredients are a legally priviledged trade secret of Con Agra, Inc." is not an answer that will do much to diffuse even the most epistemologically shoddy senses of paranoia...
On Bill Maher's show: if GMO food truly is safe and beneficial (and it generally is if you remove Monsanto et al. from the equation), then the obvious solution is not to keep consumers from knowing what it is they're eating, but just the opposite--educate them on exactly what it is they're eating in a neutral, fact-based manner.
Rob
Knowing less means knowing MORE!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Have you seen what Americans eat these days? Holy shit, that wouldn't even pass as food 100 years ago! We eat such an unhealthy assortment of food as a daily staple, I think we ought to sort out our heart disease and diabetes problems before we spend our efforts scrutinizing GMOs. GMOs may be damaging our health, but it can't be as important as addressing the obvious and immediate issues we currently face.
If history is a guide. Big money will successfully kill this. Note, it's not big money itself that does this. It's the damn voters who fall for it. Fuck them
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Even if you ignore the question of health issues, people should at least know whether or not it is legal for them to plant the seeds from the produce they purchase and grow their own.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
To be fair... "salmonberries" and "caterporn" don't sound very appetizing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is all about trade-off. So, if we want to inform the public, that is good, but let us do it fairly, without the FUD though. Many producers of regular crops also use a lot more insecticides. Why shouldn't they be required to disclose it as well?
Moreover, the public should be informed that the wheat and the rice they eat has nothing to do with what their ancestors ate. It has been modified in all sorts of crazy ways, sometimes use radiations to accelerate genetic mutations. Should we disclose this as well? Let us be fair: why not?
A better informed consumer is a great thing. FUD is something different.
I'll take GMOs if this means that farmers don't have to dump crazy quantities of insecticides on their field. But if I don't know which insecticide they used and how much they applied, how can I make an informed decision?
Considering that there are several European countries that have blanket bans on GMO crops, you might want to include them in your "Brainwashed people (especially Americans, due to their culture) can't be healed very easily." statement.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
This signature is false.
The headline is ridiculous. Perhaps a majority of Californians want this. We will find that out in November (at least we will find out if a majority of the Californians who bother to vote want it).
However, the initiative process means anyone who gets enough signatures can get an initiative on the ballot. Anyone. That's why saying "California wants ... " is ludicrous. Both right-leaning and left-leaning initiatives, some loony and some thoughtful get on the ballot in California. Getting on the ballot in California means nothing. The proof is in the voting.
Sometimes there are diametrically opposed initiatives (e.g. a few years ago one would deregulate somewhat the power company, and another would increase it's level of regulation!). Does that mean California is cognitively dissonant? Perhaps, but not because of whatever initiatives are proposed, since they are proposed by different people.
Just by looking at the initiatives proposed in the last few years (e.g. some anti-immigrant, some pro-pot) you would think that all different kinds of people with all different kinds of ideas live here. Imagine that.
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How can it be anti-science to put a truthful blurb on something which says what it is?
If the caterer is really hot I'd watch it.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Strawberries spliced with salmon?
Strawmon!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I find it odd on a site where so many bristle at the very idea of closed-source software that people are basically endorsing closed-source food production.
You seriously underestimate just how much astroturf there is on social web sites these days. That $25M isn't all going on beer and skittles you know.
Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown. Anecdotally, the spending may have backfired as it caused her to be seen as the "big money" candidate. If throwing money at a campaign always worked, we'd have had a President Steve Forbes too.
There is not one thing Monsanto and friends can say to change my mind about this. Let 'em spend themselves into oblivion.
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
.. and they are in the pocket of firms like monsanto. GM soybeans were approved in the us without even going through proper testing. I'm sure you don't find it interesting that outside the US (EU) for example where the testing WAS done, the gm crops were banned... hmm, wonder why that happened?
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
.. and they are in the pocket of firms like monsanto. GM soybeans were approved in the us without even going through proper testing. I'm sure you don't find it interesting that outside the US (EU) for example where the testing WAS done, the gm crops were banned... hmm, wonder why that happened?
It's worse than you think. The GM soybeans were approved right after the bush administration appointed a (now former) vice president of Monsanto corporation as the head of the FDA. The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing, and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them. You can read more about it here (or hundreds of other sites, use google). http://www.infowars.com/help-stop-former-monsanto-vp-from-attaining-top-position-at-the-fda/
This Monsanto scam is quite possibly one of the worst things done to the American people by it's own government... or maybe not, we'll never really know since we're not allowed to perform the necessary testing. If there was nothing to hide, then I think testing would not be banned.
This stuff is BAD news for humans.
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
Except that the reason for the "may contain nuts" label is that some people have dangerous allergic reactions to nuts. There's a known, legitimate hazard that is being warned against. There is no such hazard in the case of genetically-modified foods.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
With the incestuous relationship of Monsanto and the FDA, an annual lobbying budget second only to Big Tobacco, it is likely they will continue purchasing the support of government officials as usual.
Why so many things can already be mis-labeled, i.e. MSG (Autolyzed Yeast Extract) and myriad other ingredients, but people are presumed without the right to know whether their dinner is bio-modified or not, makes no sense. If something is to be sold as food, all practically available information should be made available and transparent. What is entirely insane is the efforts of Monsanto to punish companies for labeling their own products as GMO Free. In most cases where GMO Free labels are used, a compulsory disclaimer of insignificance is placed below. Odd that such modifications would ever be made if no significant differences were achieved.
I am not anti GMO. But I am against its current implementation. Monsanto has destroyed many farmers, attempted such grotesque strategies as the Terminator Seed, litigated 1000s of hard-working farmers for nothing, and has at times been reckless with its technology. There are thousands of political reasons alone which should be ample cause for mandatory labeling, but voluntary labeling at the very least should be completely unhindered -- perhaps like Cruely Free, Dolphin Safe, etc.
The likeliness of every single instance of modified food proving itself safe after decades is low, and some margin of error seems inevitable. Food is also not an option for anyone -- it is totally essential and therefore a shared and public element. The very concept of privatizing food and obscuring its "nature" is asinine. Many supermarkets show the national origin of the product as they should, and consumers use this and similar data to make personal choices for which the interference of should be a crime. An informed public is the only public; anything else is a product. If consumers knew absolutely nothing of GMO and only of Monsanto's litigation history alone, that in itself would dissuade most consumers from touching their products. What are they afraid of? Choice? Well golly gee. I guess they'll just have to force themselves then, because as the meme goes, "We have a whole planet to feed". Next time someone pukes that meme, try asking them about their agricultural experience and just how far they think GMO really needs to go to meet that task. There is plenty of room for choice for many years to come. Assuming people can't make intelligent choices is dangerous behavior for a government, especially when it comes to basic needs. It is also a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating expectation.
I've worked on a few farms and know very well what excellent production can be yielded without GMO. To even suggest that non-GMO agriculture has become obsolete is ludicrous. And until it is, label the damned products!
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
While the motivations for this may be unscientific, not telling people what they're eating doesn't really help either. People need to learn more about the science so there's less unknown for them to be afraid of.
Enforced ignorance is not anti-science.
yes and all those institutions have been infiltrated by people who have the interest in the profits of companies like Monsanto at heart at the expense of everything else. don't believe me look it up. There is a table on this site that illustrates this clearly.
The "organic" growers will want testing of foods from the big companies to keep them honest. But, it could well be mandated for all producers.
If you say it's non-gmo, prove it. Regardless of the size of your operation.
With modern laboratory methods, we can detect tiny amounts of specific genetic material.
example: detecting Asian Carp DNA in the water of Lake Michigan. We haven't seen the carp, but we know that at least a few are there from the shed genetic material.
Imagine the consternation when much of the final product "organic" food also tests positive for detectable amounts of transfered BT genes or other GM material. Additions that could have blown in with pollen or from volunteer plants. You grind, mix and process many foods, so anything in it gets distributed. If your suppliers don't do a good job of vetting their sources, you're screwed.
Too bad if it was contamination. Go to court for remedy if you want. But, in the meantime it's not GMO free so pull off the labels or pull it from the shelves.
It's all in how the levels are set in the regulations and what part of the production cycle the testing is done at.
If you want GMO free, it doesn't matter how it gets in, so end product testing rather than the incoming materials is quite reasonable.
If it passes, big food should lobby for stringent levels and testing. Besides, for large companies, the expense can be spread of huge amounts of product shipped. For small organic producers, not so much. If it passes, this "big win" may be a devil in disguise for those that wanted it.
"In the absence of a health hazard (which the FDA has said does not exist)... "
You trust the FDA? Really?
Look up the phrase "corporate capture", and count how many times "FDA" is mentioned in the same articles.
"... the labeling burden is on those who care about it."
Which, according to polls, is a clear majority of the American people.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this".
Probably because they don't think it will work. When people are thinking rationally, it is practical to sway their opinions by presenting facts. When a large number of people have made up their minds and turned themselves into a movement that is highly skeptical of any "facts" from outside of the movement and wholly accepting of "facts" from within the movement, reason becomes nearly waste of time.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Shelf space is limited. Products that don't sell well enough are soon not available. Is there really a difference between being banned and being forced off the shelf by a default boycott?
"Thing is, every crop humans grow for food already HAS been genetically modified, through centuries of selective breeding. In the case of ruby red grapefruit, the crop was developed by exposing the seeds to radiation and causing a LOT of mutations quite fast."
No, the "nasty truth" is that with all those mutations and cross-breedings, they are STILL plants, and they STILL do not contain genes from already-highly-artificially-modified bacteria, or jellyfish.
It's NOT the same thing, and to pretend that it is, is no better than lying.
And so because there's no danger, it should be completely acceptable to simply not tell the consumer the origins of what it is that they are eating?
This reminds me greatly of a parent deciding to not tell a child what in a meal because they know the child will refuse to eat it.
Do you really believe that it s also acceptable for adults to be treated this way?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear
What..... that big business, agri or otherwise, has no problem withholding salient information from the public (even when they have the right to know) in the name of profit?
Me and my mutants are enquiring minds and want to know.
I've been eating Killoggs Korn Flakes with a spoon in each right hand since I can remember when
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The market can operate just fine if GMO-free foods are labelled as such, and the cost (which goes way beyond the cost of the paper label itself) will be passed on to the people who care about it. This is, as I said, an attempt to convince the average consumer that there is a hazard, not to alleviate lack of knowledge among those who want to know.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer
So what? Have you gotten any direct benefits from silos or tractors (besides in terms of cost)? What is wrong with somethng only benefiting farmers and/or the environment (and if you don't think GE crops benefit the environment, thing again: they facilitate no-till agriculture, which prevents fertilizer runoff and reduces carbon emissions).
and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred
But why is it only GE and not everything else? Selective breeding, various types of hybridization, somaclonal variation and mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, sport selection, wide crosses, and embryo rescue, ect all get a free pass? What about everything else you could say about a crop, like where it was grown, what fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, ect were applied? Hell, most things don't even label the variety name, let alone the genetic history or a crop.
People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.
What about Clearfield wheat or any of the other non-GE crops bred for herbicide resistance? Why should that get a free pass? And what if I want to know the conventionally bred genes found in my non-GE food? It is very inconsistent to single out one method of crop improvement and ignore the rest. And do you think non-GE corn should have a label informing that it had more pesticides than an insect resistant GE corn? Somehow I can't imagine the movement for a label like that being so popular.
This thing is anti-science for the same reason those 'Warning: Evolution is only a theory' labels were anti-science. No one is denying that evolution is only a theory, but you know damned well the point of that was not to inform, it was to cast doubt on the validity of evolution (because how many people are going to respond by saying 'Only a theory like gravity'?). This is the same thing. They are singling something out because of political controversy, not science. Well, and profit of course. While it is true that Monsanto and others are funding the anti-side, organic businesses (and Mercola the homeopath and anti-vaxxer, so you know where the directors of this movement stand on science) are funding the pro, and what a fortunate coincidence, they don't use GE crops.
And by the way, do you want to know how to tell if something s GE or not? I always know if I'm eating something that is GE. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. That's it. If something has those in it, its probably GE. You want to avoid GE, avoid those, or buy organic or things labeled non-GMO (like things certified via the Non-GMO Project). Millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and vegans get by without special labels just by educating themselves. Anyone who wants to avoid GE crops does not deserve a special law because they will not take responsibility for their own lifestyles and educate themselves.
If that were the case, it means these companies *know* that the consumer at large does not want their product. Exactly why they have these aversions to the GMO products is inconsequential: the public is innately biased against it, and does not want to consume that product.
So, in order to force the consumers to consume the "cheaper" GMO produce, they have to be deceptive in the packaging and labling.
How is that not a deceptive market practice?
If this were cheap chinese electronics that are functionally identical being sold as genuine items, the FTC and WIPO would be birthing purple cows over it, but because it's just food, and you wouldn't understand the difference anyway, it is perfectly OK to conceal this information to enforce continued profits of a product line?
This produce has been modified from its original version. It has been mutated to give school children early-onset puberty and destroy your digestive system"
I'm proud to say that while I ignore nearly every petitioner outside of Trader Joe's, I did take the time to stop and sign this one.
This isn't about withholding information. The information is freely available to anyone willing to research it. This is about forcing information beyond a rational minimum of information (like nutritional content, ingredients, and allergies) to be displayed, but not all the information, only the information that fits political agendas. Kosher and Halal aren't required to be labeled by law, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding that information. You don't have to label if something was produced via tissue culture or bud sport selection or mutagenesis or wide crosses either, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding anything. Why is that a non-issue, yet doing the same for genetic engineering is 'withholding information'?
There should only be a warning label if there's something to warn against. Seems pretty simple to me. And the Prop. 37 advocates most certainly want this to be perceived as a warning label. Anyone to whom it matters can already seek out non-GMO food with no problem, and probably already does. This is, again, not about providing people with information, but convincing them that the information is important.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Yes. For thier edification, life expectancies continue to increase pretty much everywhere in the world except for a few war-torn locales. I see no evidence our food is suddenly going to start to kill us. Lack of food, of course, kills many people.....just sayin. So slap a "may contain GMOs" label on everything, and get on with feeding people. It's a much more important problem.
And I want surgically modified Californians to be labeled.
Quack, quack.
I agree that most people are science-illiterate, but that does not mean that the information should be withheld, given the choice of GM modified food or no food I am fairly certain that most people will choose food no matter how clearly it is labelled GM, so people will not starve.
Producers are quite willing to place deceptive labels on products in their favour. (fat free lollies that are 99% sugar, 80% fat free, slim chips that contain more fat than regular chips ....) If the information stops people buying your product then tough luck stop doing it (or prove that it is safe the burden of proof should be on the producer since they should have the knowledge), the free market is about meeting consumer demand, not about fooling people into buying your products. If people don't like red cars stop making them even if they are faster, or more fuel efficient.
Your argument is people aren't smart enough to decide so don't give them the information. Well you could argue people aren't smart enough to decide who to vote for too (you would probably be right). Or drink or whatever you think you know better in. If people choose to buy higher priced products because they are GM free then it is there problem, and it is their choice under a free-market system.
I don't necessarily believe that choice is a good thing, but the current system is built on it, I personally don't l like the idea of an industry deciding what is best for me because they have vested interest, also by extension the government since I believe the industries have a disproportionate say in related legislature.
Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition
Uh, I think that should have been "opposing" the proposition. Monsanto would have been kind of annoyed if they accidentally gave all of that money to those proposing the proposition...
No, the warnings for people with food allergies are separate from ingredient lists. "This package contains nuts or was processed at a facility that also processes nuts" is a mandated warning.
I'm as skeptical of revolving doors as anyone, but do you have any evidence he acted unethically?
The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing, and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them
Bullshit. Do you even think about that statement? If that is true, why doesn't Monsanto just release whatever they want? Why is AquaAdvantage having such a tough time with the GE salmon, why can't I buy an Arctic Apple tree, where's the HoneySweet Plum, Golden Rice, or any of the university developed transgenic crops, if there is no need for stringent testing?
You can read more about it here (or hundreds of other sites, use google)
Oh wow, a conspiracy site, didn't see that coming. I love getting my information from people who say Obama isn't a citizen, 9/11 was an inside job, climate change is a hoax, and vaccines cause autism.
This stuff is BAD news for humans.
Please explain to me how the enzyme produced by the C4 EPSPS (the bacterial version of the ESPSP enzyme that all plants have that glyphosate targets that is inserted into Round-Up Ready crops to give them their ability to resist glyphosate) is bad news for humans? Go into all the biochemical nitty gritty if you please.
Its not the specific trait that is the problem. Its the fact that speciation makes it very hard to get at the genetic material of a species, so the only way to get that trait into a plant is to use bacteria or viruses to push the DNA in and there are a number of other protocols at work that include such things as using antibiotic genes as tagging markers. All of this has serious real world implications from potentially causing antibiotic resistance to spread in the wild, to unintentionally passing any number of genes into the environment. When you have thousands of million of different genes floating around that are associated with infectious vectors, their impact is highly unpredictable and may result in real harm being done to a wide variety of species including human beings. It is an incredibly bad genetic experiments literally tossed into the wind, and nobody has the vaguest idea what the long term impacts will be. Selective breeding is infinitely more benign, and relies on stable genetic crossings. You can't begin to compare these two processes and the difference in their potential danger. You can't cross a tomato and a trout... you can cross a corn and a bacteria. You can only snip DNA out of one and insert in the other, and maybe the DNA hangs around, and more than likely it doesn't. This isn't playing Gawd, its playing genetic Russian Roulette.
Because for the life of me, I cannot determine if that counts controlled breeding programs.
To me, there is no difference if it happens in a 1980s test tube or a 1780s greenhouse... To me, there is not such thing as "genetically unmodified" food anymore.
As a California resident, I probably could have guested that some stupid "prop" like this would pop up. Shocking, California wasting ungodly amounts of money it doesn't have to institute ridiculous social ideas just to fart out some propaganda. If any place in the world thinks that it's majority has the right to force-feed social bullshit down the throats of everyone, it's California. I swear, I'm going to dance around wearing only plastic bags, smoking within ten feet of [anything] and eating a happy meal, maybe while juggling some gigantic genetically engineered tomatoes. Stop wasting my money.
Mod parent up!
Thank you for taking the time to post that.
Sure, in a happy world of rainbows and unicorns where GMO foods with significant market share had real benefits to customers, we could discuss the finer points of GMO in your food, but the seed giants are their own worst enemy. It's a vendor lock-in device used to corner the market on herbicides. If there was ever a market for "good" GMOs, Monsanto killed it.
"Look you can take your bible thumping butt out of here, I don't want to hear about how you don't believe in evolution."
Hahahaha. What an ass.
Inserting the genes of already gene-modified bacteria and other animals into PLANTS is not "evolution". And I never said ANYTHING about not believing in evolution.
Pick up a science book. Or at least, criticize something real instead of this imaginary BS.
I live in California, and there are legally mandated warnings like this all over the place -- so many of them that it's impossible to take them seriously.
"WARNING: This area contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
You get this in places like hotel rooms and gas stations. What am I going to do, stop putting gas in my car or stop staying in hotels?
It's also applied in totally inconsistent ways. Some companies that sell herbal medicines have to put the warning on their product, which sort of makes sense, because any carcinogenic effect is an effect regardless of whether the product is "natural." But in other cases (chocolate, vinegar), the courts have ruled that other "natural" products don't have to have the warnings because they're natural.
There are some possible sane, logical reasons to be concerned about the political and economic effects of GMOs (concern about patents, inability of farmers to use seed from their own crops, reduction of genetic variability, harm to neighboring fields from spraying roundup on GM roundup-resistant fields, ...), but there are no sane, logical reasons to be worried about health effects of eating them -- not on a population basis, and certainly not on an individual basis. Therefore I think it's great that Californians are bestowing upon themselves yet another set of warnings. The proliferation of warnings ensures that people will pay even less attention to them than they do now, and that's exactly the right result, since they should be paying zero attention to them in the first place.
Eating is actually a fairly dangerous activity, because we do a lot of it, and even a low probability of harm becomes significant when it's repeated by every individual many, many times. But we don't want to know about the high risk of harm from eating "natural" foods (salmonella, carcinogens in barbecued meat, ...). We only want to know about the (zero) risk of harm from eating "unnatural" GM foods, because that seems scarier.
Same deal with people being afraid their kids will get kidnapped by a stranger when they should be worried about them getting run over by someone talking on their cell phone. The first risk is nearly zero, but it's unusual, so we're more scared of it.
Same deal with people thinking the Fukushima nuclear accident (with zero deaths) is really horrible, while the tsunami (18,000 deaths) isn't a big deal. The rational reaction would be to improve early warning systems for tsunamis, but because nuclear stuff is unusual, we're more scared of it.
Find free books.
Really? Three words for ya: horizontal gene transfer. It happens naturally. Part of the reason you are you is because of horizontal gene transfer, where, way the hell back when, about the time of the Great Oxygen Catastrophe here on Earth, some aerobic backteria, divorced from each other's evolutionary chains by a few million years, 'kissed and made up' and swapped some genes necessary for further evolution. These gave your cells the ability to burn glucose for energy, etc. Consider also the case of shingles. It's basically the chicken pox virus that's still in your cells after the infection, in a dormant state, until something wakes it up, when it mutates the nucleus of your skin cells and causes shingles. That's another example of horizontal gene transfer, and it happens naturally.
Fact is, you could make a case for genetic research and engineering in order to eliminate things like shingles, herpes, AIDs, etc. Instead of the kneejerk reaction of 'OMGOMGOMG, they're playing GAWD!!!', we need to do the research in space, away from Earth's gravity well, by remotes, no human contact once the lab is placed, so that in case of an accident, just deorbit the damned thing into the heart of the sun. Hell, let's figure out what glitches in cells to cause them to stop replacing themselves after a few dozen replications, eventually leading to death. I'm thinking, beat death back for a few hundred years, maybe us mere humans can wise up enough to quit fuckin around with the petty stuff like wars, pollution, and the like, and start working on the REAL problems that we'll be facing as a species. All it takes to start is get some reasonably smart people looking at genetics and genetic engineering and letting them get their teeth wet on it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I fear that this initiative will result in less genetic engineering, due to Luddism.
Genetic engineering can greatly increase crop yields and this is good for everyone.
I very rarely see the material that cause cancer warning, and I've bought only one thing in the last decade that had such a label.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Why would the US consumer buying GM crops stop it from being exported now? It would certainly cause the price to change but I don't see why GM companies would not be selling GM overseas only because there is a local market. What stops them from selling overseas to some countries is because those countries don't want GM foods.
The usual argument is that spraying corn plants with live BT germs as pest control introduces much more than just the active protien when people eat the corn. (You ingest whole germs.) If eating whole germs des not show any noteworthy reactions, then surely eating just the active protien in the corn would be less harmful even than the sprayed natural corn.
However, this discounts that proteomic is a *very* new discipline, which is cinsistently showing that simply adding a gene can have a wide array of consequences in a host organism, especially when the gene is incorporated in a less than controlled fashion (such as via a retrovirus vehicle.)
Eating the corn is safe. Eating the germ is safe. Eating the corn and the germ together is safe. Eating the corn that harbors genes from the germ might not be safe; there is a growing body of evidence that the location of a gene in the nuclear DNA has very real effects, and can cause dangerous biological processes in the host.
This is why testing these products is essential, and why people need to be given much more information than they are.
True or not, you're not going to convince many sane folks if your only evidence is from a site that makes TimeCube look reasonable by comparison.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
WTF Fail??? There is precisely the same hazard in genetically modified foods, it's the primary reason people want to know.
GMO's have gene sequences inserted into their DNA from some other species, eg bacteria or squid. The purpose of those genes is to create protiens, and it is protiens that cause allergies.
So we could have the case of someone who is allergic to seafood having a reaction with GM soybeans. It is 100% valid that people should be informed.
Sorry, I should be clearer, it is protiens that *trigger* allergies.
Of course not all GM foods will trigger allergies, but we just dont know which ones will affect which people. It is propper to use caution and part of that is to inform the public so that they can make a choice as to their risk exposure.
Ok, I'll accept your premise. I'm a libertarian after all and agree that regulation should be used solely to educate the public. (i.e. cigarettes should be legal but you should know what's in them)
But there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods have any detrimental health effects. Quite the opposite in fact.
What the modifications do is drive down the costs of production and increase crop yields. Yes, this increases the profits of the producers as well, but that's how capitalism works.
So, when these labels go on foods, and naive members of the public avoid those foods out of misplaced fear is that ok?
Perhaps it is. But then take into account the fact that the majority of the people that avoid these foods will be middle class and upper income... they can afford to switch to unmodified foods. That's their right of course. But that will then drive up demand for unmodified foods. Unmodified foods require greater resources to produce. More land, more water, more fertilizers. The price of not just unmodified food will go up, but as more land is used for it, less will be available for modified foods and their prices will rise as well. This means food will cost more for everyone. Including the poor.
All of this, because of fear.
There are countries in Africa that have refused American food aid because of these very same fears. Countries ravaged by famine. People have literally starved to death in the present because of fears of cancer 50 years from now that are completely baseless.
http://www.un.org/en/africarenewal/vol16no4/164food2.htm
It's a travesty that this sort of thing happens. People have DIED because of this nonsense. Do you really want to continue this pseudoscience BS? Why doesn't California instead require further studies? More research? Because those that want this legislation have already made up their minds. The science is irrelevant and they wouldn't believe results that disputed their beliefs anyway.
If the proponents of GM food win this one, there is still another approach: provide an opt-in certification for labelling non-GM foods. Like organic foods, if companies decide that customers are swayed by this label, then more might opt-in.
My main beef with GM foods, is the amount of testing and the attitudes of companies like Monsanto when it comes to control of food variety and persecution of farmers who end up being contaminated by Monsanto pollen.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If that were the case, it means these companies *know* that the consumer at large does not want their product. Exactly why they have these aversions to the GMO products is inconsequential: the public is innately biased against it, and does not want to consume that product.
Consumers in the US are 'innately biased' against GMO foods for the simple reason that they've been drowned in the 'frankenfood is death' hype. Keep in mind that if you can slap a label on something that magically makes it 'organic', you can charge a much larger price thanks to yuppies that pride themselves on 'only eating organic'. Remember the 'Baby Mozart' craze that made some people a few cool millions? Tailored towards yuppie parents, not a bit of scientific evidence to support it, and even studies showing that it was all hype. Also consider that hydroponically grown plants can be labeled as 'organic'. In all things, follow the money. Who makes money if this passes, who makes money if it doesn't, and what's the real deal without all the hype? Where's the peer-reviewed studies on both sides of this?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It's OK to demand that it be listed. And if who you buy from doesn't list it, don't buy from them. Making it a law just wastes many millions of dollars. The problem with legislation is that it's legislation. If enough people want to boycott GM foods then they'll be less economically viable and they'll have more non-GM food to choose from. This has the added benefit of self-verification of far-away farms problematic, so those wanting to avoid GM foods will be more likely to buy local.
When labeling becomes government mandated then lots of money comes into play. And of course graft and corruption always follows money.
-- Who checks to see if a product is labeled non-GM ( or not labeled GM) correctly? Can the product be tested or does it require access to the process of growing and processing?
-- How many steps away from the original product is GM labeling necessary? If the product is canned, frozen, dried? (requires more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce)
-- What about meat products where the feed was GM crops?
-- Does it make any yard waste now "toxic" because someone might have put GM corncobs in with the grass clippings? Don't want to use that compost on your organic tomatoes.
--What about subsequent products made from the original product that want to avoid the GM label? Can the makers of these products go by labels only or do they have to research themselves to avoid liability? (requires even more bureaucracy to monitor/enforce ), If they go by labels only do they have record keeping requirements?
-- What about restaurants that serve food that want to avoid putting "GM" next to every item? Do they have to certify each dish? Does having GM foods in the same refrigerator or kitchen taint the whole menu? (Is this something new for the health dept to check up on?)
-- What about foods sourced outside CA? This means raw ingredients, processed and packaged food. Who goes to other states ( or foreign countries) to test / verify? (It's useless to have a law that doesn't include a process for verifying the labeling is correct )
-- What about mail order? No ordering out of area non-GM food if the seller can't verify that their ingredients are non-GM ( harder to do if they're sourced from a place where that's not a requirement)
Depending on the costs involved it might just be cheaper for businesses who want to sell food in CA to put a warning up similar to the Prop 65 warnings: "Food sold here may contain GM products" and then be free from having to maintain the records needed to avoid liability for any miss-marked product.
The people who want to avoid, or at least know about, GM foods could have spent their money on creating an independent infrastructure to monitor food producers and give them seal of approval on foods they verified was pure non-GM. Those same people could then foot the bill for that infrastructure and any additional costs the producers incur and pass along in the form of price increases. This is not unlike foods certified as Kosher or Halal.
Those prices increases for non-GM food will be there if it's legislated though, since it's unlikely that anyone would investigate a producer who labeled their product as GM. Only the un-labeled ( or labeled non-GM) will be called upon to prove it. That's the only way to prevent unscrupulous sellers from putting out cheaper GM foodstuff and lying about it. So while the labeling is supposed to be forced on the GM products the biggest financial burden will be on the non-GM producers. Considering much of the GM crops are intended to increase yield ( and decrease cost ) the gap between GM and non-GM costs is liable to get bigger if the non-GM have new regulations to adhere to.
Have you bothered to inform yourself regarding what the real concerns and controversies regarding GM crops are? Not just the sensational crap, but the hard line scientific considerations about performing huge genetic experiments on our entire civilization, in the open wind, blowing all over the world, where if gawd forbid we discover we've made a terrible mistake, and something profoundly egregious makes it to the field, we will have less than a popcorn fart in a hurricane's chance of preventing the unthinkable. Normally, such tinkering is done under the strictest of biological safeguard, precisely because we don't know what the greater implications for such tinkering are, but here's a group who've infiltrated our government, blocked the testing necessary to prevent disaster, and are now positioned to spread whatever they create across the globe. I tell you, I honestly hope down to the bottom of my very being that the people or person behind this insanity doesn't have some twisted idea they can jump start the second coming of Christ by inventing an unstoppable global plague, because there is literally nothing stopping him/them. Oh, and if you think the whole jump starting Armageddon thing is fanciful, you need to read about what a significant number of American Christians believe regarding the second coming... it'd make you hinny pucker. GM crops could make a significant contribution to the quality of human life, we just need to make certain that the folks who wield it aren't more interested in self aggrandizement and willing to gamble on the well being of society to reach their goals.
What the Prop. 37 folks want is for the people who don't currently care about GMO one way or the other to see a label and think "Hmm, there's a label on this about it being genetically modified. That must mean it's something bad."
I care about how much trans fat is in the food I eat yet that information is denied to me. All the labels on all food says 0 grams due to loopholes you can drive a truck thru thanks to ag lobbies having their way with our elected representitives. I have to look for the words "partially hydrogenated" and take a wild guess whether the value is closer to .49g or .01g per totally arbitrary "serving".
Your argument reminds me of striping the labels from medicines and replacing them with generic statements detailing their intended function and thinking people won't care or miss the information. Guess what they would. I fail to see why food should be any different. I should have the right to know if I'm getting a tylenol or a baer or a generic version of the same.
If my corn has DNA spliced in from turtles and clownfish I WANT to know that. I want to make my own decisions before beta testing a new infallible creation of man on my family. I don't care who is supposedly inconvienced with labeling requirements in the process.
To say that I have GMO-free choices misses the point entirely. I'm not at all against GMO. I want to know specifically what strain I'm getting GMO or not.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
The truth also includes the benefits of genetic engineering. Maybe we should label non-GE having more mycotoxins? Maybe we should label GE soybeans as resulting in reduced carbon emissions? Furthermore, the truth includes many other thing about the crop. Was it blasted with radiation and useful mutation selected, as commonly happens in wheat? Was it treated with a chemical to double its chromosomes, as is used in many hybrid lines? Was it selected from a mutated bud, a common practice in apples? Was it crossed with a wild relative then back crossed to get desirable genes, a hot topic in tomatoes (whose wild relatives can be toxic). That's the truth too. Why isn't that labeled? And don't you think it is deceptive to single out on of those while ignoring everything else? It makes the thing singled out to appear exceptionally unique because many do not know the genetics of the crops they eat. It is especially so if the thing singled out has a history of fearmongering campaigns being directed at it.
Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid
That makes all the difference. Laws should be determined by reason, not whoever can shout the loudest (where do you stand on cannabis legalization and gay marriage?).
hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech
How about the right to speak when and if you want to? No one is opposing labeling. The issue is mandatory labeling. Two different things. If someone is selling GE corn, or a product containing GE soy, why should they be forced to label their product as such? The choice should be up to them.
why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs
Do you honestly think that would work? There are tons of papers published by independent scientists from around the world demonstrating the benefits an safety of GE, and this is very often dismissed by those who oppose GE (and make no mistake, these pro-labeling campaigns are anti-GE) as being part of the corporate conspiracy. There really isn't much the corporations can do at this point with respect to making a their case (not that you should really be listening to what they say anyway). Realistically, if GE food is not labeled, people will say 'Ooh, they don't label it, what are they hiding, it must be bad for you!' and if it is labeled people will say 'Ooh, they have to label it, that must mean it is different somehow, it must be bad for you!' just like when people point to labeling or bans in other countries as evidence that GE crops are dangerous.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
No, they're just scaring people about them, thus making them less useful for farmers (whose end goal it to run a business and make a living), which will consequently prevent future advances from genetic engineering, especially for horticultural, minor, and biodiverse crops and small biotech businesses (as well as ones that simply benefit the environment, like Enviropig, which failed because it benefited no one bu the environment and that wasn't worth putting up with the fear mongering), while big companies that sell seed for agronomic crops like Monsanto continue to hold large market shares and likely only lose some sales (after all, did proof that trans fats stop the majority of people from eating them...then again, despite the fact that they are a known danger and GE crops are as close to safe as science can demonstrate, no one has launched any big scare campaigns against the known danger, so I could be wrong about that). I swear, I would not be surprised if one of these days we found out Monsanto was behind this pro-labeling anti-GE nonsense.
Similar arguments can be made from other industries, like say, rare earth oxides.
What is the scientific difference between osmium oxide produced by sweatshop laborers in china, using ecologically devistating prcesses, and osmium oxide produced under far more sensible conditions in say, (random country here) "brazil"? Both are osmium oxide. Barring some freak of isotopic yeilds, both will identify exactly the same in a mass spectrometer. They are both osmium oxide.
The genera public may still have an innate negative bias against the dirty chinese version. Hiding the fact that it is dirty chinese osmium oxide, by claiming "your argument is not scientific, so unimportant!" So that you can continue using the cheap source of the oxide over the more expensive one, becase "the public can't tell the difference anyway" is straight up anticonsumer.
That is exactly what is happening here. The GM crops are undesirable for sociological reasons, just like the chinese osmium is sociologically undesirabl. Same with "conflict diamonds." This argument is like de'biers saying "there is no outstanding difference between a conflict diamond, and a non-conflict diamond that ordinary people would recognize, so there is no reason whatosever to disclose the source of our diamonds, or brand label them as such."
The real imperitive here, is that they want to continue selling conflict diamonds at non-conflict prices, by forbidding the consumer to have knowledge of where the diamonds in their wife's wedding band came from.
The difference, is that we have GM crop companies wanting to call GM corn "Corn", for the same effect. Some people object to GM for religious reasons (playing god)-- others think it is franken food. Others are concerned that the crops were banned in other countries, and don't want to eat them. Forbidding that knowledge so that the GM companies can continue to sell the products as fungible generic produce, despite its exotic nature, is the same exact thing.
In any other industry the practice is universally reviled.
Why is it tolerated in the food industry?
Virtually everything you said was square on the money, and I for the most part concur. Especially about the part that people should develop the personal responsibility gene and take the trouble to make informed choices for themselves rather than bouncing from one knee-jerk to the next. That said, my biggest concern is that the "Science" employed in GM crops is being applied in a sloppy fashion, the genetic content is finding its way into the wild without the slightest appreciation for what that means to native species or even animal life for that matter. You mention environmental value, the environment is a big place. The antibiotic gene tags used in GM crops may well exacerbate existing problems with bacterial immunity to antibiotics, and its crazy just throw those genes literally into the wind. There is good reason that we use safeguards in the lab, and we take no such safeguards in the field. We know that genes particularly plasmids jump species through viruses and bacteria, and that the pollen emitted by GM crops have already caused numerous wild species to take up the "Modified Genes". With so many unknowns, and with so great a potential for both environmental and social disaster, we should be putting profit behind social well being and making certain what we put in the fields won't come back to haunt us.
Who says it has to be considered a warning label? It's just saying what it is. Period. If consumers interpret it as a warning label, that's really their own problem, isn't it? Is it morally right to deliberately decide to not tell the whole truth to consumers about a product just because some percentage of them will happen to not like it and probably avoid those products?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There's no requirement that privately funded research become publicly available, and every effort to change that has been scuttled, so far.
And it should stay that way. Not all research is about cherry picking what you want to publish. Sometimes it's a matter of determining what I can do to improve my market position. Or what new features consumers what in my market. I shouldn't be forced to publish everything -- I paid for the information. If someone else wants it, they can pay for it.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Can someone link to a study that proves that GMO food is safe?.
No, because it is logically impossible to prove that anything is safe. "Safe" is simply the lack of harm so proving safety necessarily requires proving a negative. It is also highly improbably because non-gmo is known to be not-safe. It will cause harm. It is only a question of degree and to whom.
I'm sorry, but if it can be argued that science is a systematic methodology for identifying likely truth, and distinguish it from certain untruth. Enforced ignorance might or might not be anti-science but it would certainly be impossible to practice any kind of meaningful science in the absence of verifiable facts.
Monsanto is working overtime today with all the AC's here that type more than 1 sentence. Yeah, guys good luck with this one, but it's a weeeee bit to obvious.
True or not, you're not going to convince many sane folks if your only evidence is from a site that makes TimeCube look reasonable by comparison.
Yeah, I've got to do something more than a quick google search and link paste heh. Having read about that situation in the past, I just entered in some of the info and that site was among many reporting on the same thing.
1) Food producers mark practically everything as GM. Whether it is or isn't.
2) California buyers panic.
3) Producers release small amounts of non-GM food onto the market labeled as non-GM. With prices set by false scarcity.
4) ?????
5 Profit!
Have gnu, will travel.
real benefits to customers
Like this? Besides, why should it be a bad thing if I do not directly benefit? I don't directly benefit from disease resistant hybrids, or tractors, or silos. Why is it bad that GE crops only help the farmer?
used to corner the market on herbicides
You do realize that you can get a generic glyphosate from companies that aren't Monsanto, yes? Also, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Those herbicide resistant crops are actually a good idea. It used to be to control weeds farmers had to till the soil (which is terrible for your soil quality and causes fertilizer runoff, which causes all sorts of damage in aquatic ecosystems) or spray harsher herbicides. The transgenic systems are a step up from that, contrary to the ill will directed at them. Sure, it is always best to minimize agrochemical usage, but it isn't a choice between one herbicide and no herbicide, it is a choice between herbicide A and herbicide B/ tillage. This is one of those finer points that is often glossed over.
If there was ever a market for "good" GMOs, Monsanto killed it.
The first shot was fired at the Flavr Savr tomato, which was not produced by Monsanto. How, if it is Monsanto's evil deed to blame from the public perception of GE crops, is that the case? GE crops are not demonized because of Monsanto, it is the other way around. Monsanto just put a face on GE. It's a lot easier to demonize a big bad company that by claiming they are suing farmers and making Indians kill themselves than it is to demonize science.
You must not live in California. The cancer warnings don’t tend to show up on food, but they’re on building entrances, gas pumps, construction equipment, half the stuff in the hardware store. Usually it’s because there is lead or something somewhere, regardless of quantity or how exposed it is. So the sign is useless because it doesn’t differentiate between a toxic waste dump and a place that sells tobacco. (I exaggerate, but just barely.)
That seems like a curious comparison. You're basically saying that:
Consumer: Why don't you label your food as non-Kosher?
Producer: Because I'm not trying to market my food to you.
Is the same as:
Customer: Why don't you label your food as GM?
Consumer: Because if I did that, you wouldn't eat it!
Not commenting on whether or not consumer's fears about GM food is justified, only saying that the producers know people would shun the food simply for being GM.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
To say it is anti-science is a stretch!! It is humorous to see Agribusinesses and food manufacturers forking out millions to try and buy off this proposition, while the consumer has the right to know what they are buying. It is on both the state and Agribusinesses and food manufacturers, to educate consumers (or the consumer should be able to educate themselves) on any pros-cons of Genetically Modified Foods! Of course Cali is flat broke and the argi, and food manufactures will bitch and moan that they are losing money to make consumers aware of the pros-cons, of course if such pros-cons exist they would withhold it from the public anyway.
What about Clearfield wheat or any of the other non-GE crops bred for herbicide resistance? Why should that get a free pass? And what if I want to know the conventionally bred genes found in my non-GE food? It is very inconsistent to single out one method of crop improvement and ignore the rest
I'm a physicist by education & training, and I'm anything but anti-science (I'm all in favour of the space programme, never mind the cost, because we need that off-world colony asap) - but the idea of fiddling with the oh-so subtle machinery of a species' DNA, which has taken at least 2 billion years to evolve (I'm not a flat-Earther Creationist) makes the hairs rise on the back of my neck. There is no way we can possibly safely understand the full implications of inserting a fish gene into a tomato to improve shelf-life.
My objections to GE (and those of many others) have nothing to do with imagining that the resulting food will be in some way "unsafe to eat" or "bad for me" - that's just the way the anti crowd are painted with pitchfork'n'torches hysteria by the GE companies' PR teams. Protein is protein is protein. No, for me it's all about the rash folly of fiddling with that double helix and messing it up. It's a very clever molecule.
That conventionally-bred gene manipulation you mention, while resulting in similarly granular effects to that of the GE, has the benefit of using mechanisms and pathways which have stood the test of those 2 billion years without resulting in catastrophic species loss or damage - *that's* why it gets a free pass .... in my book, anyway.
I hesitate to invoke Hawking style religiosity but I will: Genetic Engineering is "playing God" (no, I'm anything but Christian) when IMHO there is no way we are anywhere near competent yet to exercise such ability. We need to exercise more humility instead. This beautiful planet is the only one we have, or are likely to have for some considerable time to come, and it should be treated with kid gloves.
NB: I'm not dogmatic about this - I'm deadly serious, and I'm always willing to be educated, so teach me if you will - that's the scientific way :-)
If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
Consumers in the US are 'innately biased' against GMO foods for the simple reason that they've been drowned in the 'frankenfood is death' hype.
And don't forget that consumers are also "innately biased" against GMO foods that have been drowned in pesticides and herbicides.
You must not live in California. The cancer warnings don’t tend to show up on food...
You must not eat out much. All fast food restaurants in California and many other higher-class restaurants have a warning that their food contains... something, I don't even remember what (fat lot of good the signs do eh), which Is Known To The State of California To Cause Cancer, followed be a caveat that they don't add this chemical to their food, it's just something that's created when you fry things or roast coffee.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If they were talking about a ban your rant would make sense.
Did you know that there is already a UPC code for genetically engineered foods that was fought for by big agro?
Did you know that it has never been used because big agro believes that people will not pay as much for GMO crops as non-GMO crops?
Truth in labeling is a good thing. Especially when their is no where near enough data to make an informed decision. Some GMO crops are probably better than their non-GMO siblings. Some GMO crops are probably a lot worse.
The problem is that big agro does not seem to want to know, and that it is using arguments very similar to what the tobacco industry made when they were denying that tobacco was harmful. This leads to some very unsettling thoughts about the American food supply.
Allowing people to pass off product A as product B just because we haven't done any studies showing that A is different than B is crazy.
Work bio at MMWD
> I hope the Bill passes.
Not in the way it is currently constructed. It's ridiculous. There is no lower threshold, which basically means everything has to be labelled.
There are also a variety of special exemptions that make the bill an obvious shill law for certain organizations.
"If you have legitimate disputes about actual GMO products, then speak up. But enough with the handwaving already."
I already have, which you would know if you had been paying attention. No "hand-waving" here.
There is evidence that GMO "nicotinoid pesticide" crops are a primary cause of Colony Collapse disorder, killing off bees in droves. There is evidence that the resulting nicotinoid compounds are, in fact, harmful to humans. And just to put the icing on the cake, the actual pests that it was supposed to kill or repel are quickly becoming resistant.
There was recently a class-action lawsuit against one of the companies that makes GMO corn, over cows that their feed corn apparently killed. The company settled out of court to avoid litigation, and the product was pulled from the market.
There was a paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal last year that linked "roundup-ready" GMO products to liver damage in mice and rats.
I could go on, but there is no need. Get a fucking education yourself before you start insulting people, you moron.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
You're right. And whether or not brown people have touched my food is also part of that "truth". After all, you can't prove there's no such thing as "nigger cooties". And the customer has the right to know if any minority has been involved in the production of their food. It's just information right?
It's information that the average consumer can't possibly know what to do with. They (and almost everyone who will read this page) has absolutely no understanding of plant biology or nutrition. They will only see it as some kind of health warning, even if there's no reason why that might be the case. It's ridiculous fear-mongering and you all need to stop pretending that this is a concern about health rather than a concern about a specific business that produces some GM foods. It's the same thing the environmental extremists do - disguise anti-corporatism as environmental responsibility.
GM foods are not more or less likely to be "drowned" in anything, except for the few types that produce their own pesticides, in which case they would be drowned in less.
Also, there has never been a case of an end-user (someone who buys produce in the store and eating it) getting sick or dying from pesticides. None. ZERO. They are not even capable of giving you an upset stomach or acne at the levels you are exposed to as an end user.
No, it is not a defacto ban any more than labeling country of origin is a ban.
At the stores I shop at in the San Francisco Bay Area most produce from China is significantly cheaper than the same produce grown in Latin America.
The idea that country of origin is somehow more relevant than GMO or non-GMO seems kind of silly.
GMO foods will be cheaper than non-GMO foods. Economics will determine how much and if the reduced cost is greater than the reduced sale price.
Work bio at MMWD
The problem I have with GMO foods is not that they're inherently dangerous to the humans that eat them. They're not, and no studies have convincingly shown otherwise. It's that the modifications were released in an environmentally irresponsible fashion. We now have modified genes literally blowing in the wind around the planet, hybridizing with whatever related noxious species they can, and transferring their properties like glyphosate resistance to invasive species that really need to remain controllable. The amount of Bt corn being produced is now selecting for Bt resistant corn borers. This was done to make profits for the first 20 years, and now the entire world will have to contend with toxin-resistant superbugs, and herbicide-resistant weeds, as a result of this rush to the cash.
Would Bt resistant corn borers have evolved without the Bt corn? Would glyphosate-resistant weeds have developed without the GMO boost? We don't know anymore because the politicians refused to put the brakes on their release, lest they disrupt that tasty flow of campaign cash.
In the short term, I hear there are agribusinesses suing farmers whose crops are accidentally pollinated by neighboring GMO fields - sued for patent violations! Not only are they poisoning the well for a few measly years of positive balance sheets, but they sue the people the wind blows on!
I don't want to support any corporations that do business that way. I want to know who's getting the patent bounty so I can avoid buying their products.
Do I like the idea of Golden Rice feeding starving populations, and providing missing vitamin A from their diets? You bet, it's a great thing. People around the world deserve healthy food. And Monsanto, among many other corporations, did the right thing by granting free licenses to farmers in those countries. Now it's mostly just the "stupid fear" that's keeping people from accepting that benefit (note that in every case the people who are rejecting Golden Rice are the well-fed politicians who aren't affected by the famines.) But one good deed does not undo their many (and continued) wrongs.
John
"If you have legitimate disputes about actual GMO products, then speak up. But enough with the handwaving already."
By the way: although you could have found most of these things in about 30 seconds on Google, I have some links here for you to read:
Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn" By the way, my memory was off about the "lawsuit". The company did not settle a lawsuit. They have been charged criminally and the case is not over.
This article contains links to evidence that roundup-resistant and Bt-toxin producing BMOs are much more dangerous to human health than previously believed.
Learn now neo-nicotinoids from GMO crops are killing off bees.
There is far more, but I rest my case.
I shouldn't be forced to publish everything -- I paid for the information. If someone else wants it, they can pay for it.
I'll admit this is completely off-topic and I do not have a better alternative, but this statement caught my attention. While completely aligned with current market goals, this demonstrates very succinctly what is ultimately wrong with capitalism and pretty much every market system that has come before it. It takes true vision and innovation which should be symbiotic with human progress and perverts it into a parasitic act whereby we eliminate the best parts (human progress through information sharing) and turn it into a net negative (information consolidation and stonewalling through IP law).
Paraphrasing Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others. The ultimate reality is that a system which requires people to act against their own personal interests is at best going to yield similar results with some layers of added corruption.
However, IP law is not exactly capitalistic. It is a government granted monopoly on a patent, copyright, or trademark. The assumption is that a greater amount of creative effort is applied when they exist vs when they do not exist.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
I haven't the slightest idea why that first link did not come out right, but here is the correct one.
how else do you explain "informing" the electorate that less information is better?
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed?
Nothing, but that is not what is happening here. Ingredients are already listed. They are demanding that a particular method of crop improvement be labeled, while ignoring all the others, based on political agendas not science.
If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants.
You could apply that same logic to any other method of crop improvement (and I'm not just talking about breeding). Why single out one thing?
then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
And if people made their decisions based on science alone, that would be true. But this (besides having neither scientific nor moral basis) would be sending the message that GE is something specifically demanding of a label,
Actually its horizontal gene transfer that migrates the chunks of DNA, but its the fact that the DNA is not a stable part of the critters genome that causes all kinds of mischief. Things naturally reorganize, get expressed, the genome is a fractal ball and it opens and close entire sections to do its job. These introduced components are kludges. They mess with the normal function and expression of the organisms genome, and these genes can easily escape the housing genome and get expressed in procaryotic organisms that live in the plant or animal (remember that way over 90% of the cells in your body are not cells that contain your human inheritance.) So genes you certainly don't want getting into the wild like antibiotic markers and genes that express for resistance to things like roundup spread all over the place. The scary part is that it would be very easy to introduce a weapon, so easy, a single person with a little money and some patience, could make something truly viscous. All I've ever said is that we need to deal with this technology in particular with restraint, our hubris could very easily come back to bite us hard.
As for a vision of what's possible for being human, until we stop letting our past define us, and begin inventing future worth living into, until we stand for what we know to be just and worthwhile, and hold others (and ourselves) to account for their/our actions, we will continue to soil our diapers, make the world a cesspool, and waste the future clubbing one another insensible. I'd love to see the species wake up, I'm not certain what it would take to do it.
Those are most probably polyaromatic hydrocarbons. They are formed when fats (in food) are heated and partly burned. They are formed in normal food processing, but their formation is usually limited. When the food is heavily overcooked or even burned beyond recognition (with the number of BBQ's here in the northern hemisphere that will happen often these days) the percentage of PAH's jumps.
Cutting the blackened parts off helps of course.
If a meal is prepared gently this is not a problem. However, most of us like our meat baked, which usually means the outside is scorched -> PAH's.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
But it doesn't matter if its rational. If labeling is what folks want, then labeling we should have.
To be clear, I'm not anti-GM food. While my own gardening practices are rather organic (especially with regards to pesticides and herbicides, which I find zero use for), I'll gleefully stuff all manner of things into my gullet that I find appetizing with little regard for its source or its treatment.
But with labels, I (the consumer, who will integrate the food product into my own body) can make a more informed decision about the food that I eat (though whether I choose to or not is my own problem).
If I find GM-derived food to be better in some measure that is important to me, I'll buy more of it. If I find that it is substandard according to my own whims, then I'll tend to buy less of it. And if I find that it is exactly the same (as so many claim), then I will tend to select whichever product is a better value.
But as things stand: In the process of consuming possible-GM food, I don't know a damned thing about its origins or treatment, except that it exists, and I may or may not be eating it.
There is no argument which can be made which would persuade me to believe that having less information available is better than having more information available.
Kid-proof tablet..
Which explains all the millions of deaths!
I guess California has got a lot of labeling to do, then. It's not like anything we eat today isn't genetically modified, or hasn't been for a couple thousand years...
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
On the other hand, If people really don't want GM food, why should they be unable to make a choice and vote with their wallet? Their reasons might be silly and non logic but once you start to withhold information from the public "because they don't understand it" you're going down a very slippery slope. Where do you stop?
I live in California. It's not on any of the buildings I regularly visit. It's on one store out of a hundred in the mall, not a place I shop at. Gas is the one place I commonly see it. The hardware store does tend to have some stuff labeled, but the Home Depot in my area has mostly been able to eliminate it (for example, most of the kitchen sink kits they sold 5 years ago had the label, now it is down to about 1 in 10 or 1 in 20.). It's pretty easy to avoid buying anything with the label.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You all speak of the consumer's right to "make an informed choice" but you forget that almost all consumers are uninformed.
My freedom includes the right not to have my right to consume better, genetically-modified food (as backed by actual science) ruined by the paranoia of a propaganda-fueled public.
Please explain to me why I should trust Joe Blow Consumer and his paranoid ability to ruin the market viability of my preferred product, because "his friends say it is bad" over the opinions of actual scientists.
I'm waiting.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Huh, interesting. It occurs to me now that I may see more than my share of them because I live in an industrial area, I hadn’t thought about that.
Well, in fairness I didn't consider that either. I could well imagine in the more industrial cities that the sign would begin to show up all over the place.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Lack of evidence of consumer relevance is not the same as evidence of lack of consumer relevance. I'm not necessarily for or against GM technology, but I think that new ways of producing food should always be aligned with consumers' interests.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
If you purchase something, then you are free to do what you will with it (as long as it's not hurting someone else).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Bullshit. There is no time for research for each thing you buy in a shop. You would starve doing that research. I think people at least should have the right to know what they are eating. And not in covered terms. So no "vegetable oil". Does it contain soy or not? (Soy allergy is one of the most widespread ones). And yes, I demand to know if my world is put to danger for my food. Each few months you read (even on slashdot) discoveries in the field of genetics that are so basic that no one can seriously believe that genetic engineering is understood and perfectly safe. It may be safe in a tightly sealed laboratory, but it definitely isn't in the open field.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Links. Links to "all the data". Prove it.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
I'm not against research in GM technology, but I'm very against releasing anything into the nature unless it has been ensured over a period of at least 50 years it won't affect the nature and the bio diversity.
What I'm strictly against are corporations playing with GM to improve their profit. Not because I'm envy them for their money, but for the sole reason that profit motivated modifications are a too big security risk.
If GM modification is only allowed by globally peer reviewed research and only with the intend to help the mankind and modified organisms has to be in quarantine for at least 50 years, then it's ok for me.
Looking at the labelling issue the market can only work as the marked fundamentalist theories explain when the customer is fully informed. Suppression this information is distorting the marked.
I'm sorry, but if it can be argued that science is a systematic methodology for identifying likely truth, and distinguish it from certain untruth. Enforced ignorance might or might not be anti-science but it would certainly be impossible to practice any kind of meaningful science in the absence of verifiable facts.
Sorry. That didn't come out right. REJECTING enforced ignorance is not anti-science.
The information is freely available to anyone willing to research it.
How? If the manufacturer doesn't put it on the label, then how is a purchaser supposed to find out that the ingredients have been genetically modified?
This is about forcing information beyond a rational minimum of information (like nutritional content, ingredients, and allergies) to be displayed, but not all the information, only the information that fits political agendas.
Nutritional content and ingredients are also "information that fits political agendas", and food manufacturers were opposed to labelling them for the same reasons. How is GM different? There is no real reason why nutritional content should be labelled other than politics (aka "people want to know", which also applies to GM).
No question about it. The deadliest flu ever could be produced simply by adding a few genes to the influenza virus.
Say, the genes for botuloid neurotoxin. Good luck with antidotal treatment, when every cell in your body is manufacturing it, because you have contracted the deadly weaponized flu.
A very angry grad student, and a couple weeks alone doing secretive "research", and the next thing you know, Pol Pot looks angelic in comparison for his contributions to the world.
Is this really far off in left field? Obviously. It's so deep in tinfoil hat country that it's basically something a tinfoil mummy would say. But that does not negate that it COULD happen.
Unstable additions to plant and animal genomes cause similar things to get appended to bacterial genomes, and through bacterial replication and bacterial vectors, into other infectious forms, like viruses. It is uncontrolled, and in the wild. While the genes transferred are not likely to be for something clearly deleterious like botuloid neurotoxin, remember that many genetic disorders in humans are caused by gene sequence mutations that are exact matches for genes found doing useful things in other organisms.
Proteomics is a very very new science.
This is not the problem. Direct health issues are not the primary problem with GM. The main problem with GM is their influence to the normal plants and its impact to the bio diversity. If this leads to more expensive food due the dependency on seed producer this will cost many lives in poor countries. And this is only one scenario, others are: Due to monoculture a parasite develops a resistance. The genes jumps to unmodified plants where they get weaker. GM plants survives and extrude other plants.
Then have an independent consortium that labels the non-GM food as non-GM. Or are you only looking to add costs to the least costly product, making the poor even poorer?
It's pretty simple really. Someone else touched upon it.
Does the product strip me of the right as a farmer to save my own seeds and reuse them for the next planting?
If not, then that's reason enough to shun the product. The other health issues are interesting but ultimately less relevant. GMO foods create new and damaging monopolies that contaminates everyone's seed stocks and then sues the victims. Being "Roundup ready" is a bit of a side show really.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Unless it's genetically modified, in which case planting the seeds will get you sued by Monsanto for patent violation. Hell, they go after people who _don't even plant anything_. If your farm gets cross-pollinated by the GM crops at the farm next door, you can get sued by Monsanto. it's happened before.
I live in _Rhode Island_ and I still see those 'known to cause cancer in the state of California' stickers on damn near everything I buy! Not on doors and shops and such of course, but absolutely any piece of furniture, pretty much any appliance, bedding...christ I think I saw one on my _towels_! Actually that was probably about not meeting California fire safety regs. But yea, everything except food that I buy up here on the opposite end of the country is known to the state of California to either cause cancer or be unacceptably flammable...
I think that only happens in the crazy wild world of the USofA. Elsewhere, it's reasonably obvious that you can't sue people when your own creation starts spreading itself.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Colour me confused, but wouldn't it be more "anti-science" NOT to put the GM labels on food to educate people about the food they eat?
Maybe they are just saying they think the majority of plebs in the USA are anti-science to begin with.
I'm slightly less surprised. Those things are hard to sell in CA, so they tend to get dumped on other markets.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually I'm pretty sure at least the case I had in mind was in Canada...
Many companies already do that, and they sell better because they do(hint: kosher and halal foods)
I am also a linux sysadmin and oppose software patents. The biotech industry is at the forefront of lobbing for more intellectual property rights. http://www.bio.org/articles/unleashing-promise-biotechnology I oppose lifeform patents so if corporations dabble in genetic engineering they are on their own. No public subsidies should go to biotech (and yes patents are a subsidy)
Why not make an alliance/certification program that puts a label on food that is NOT GMO? Make it cheap and affordable for farmers.
I personally buy 99% organic (100% vegan, 80%+ raw) because I believe it is good for me. People should have the right to know what they eat. Anyone trying to take this right away should be punished, sued, bankrupted as a company. Not less.
Here is the summary:
"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
Odd that it's not in the linked article. It seems strange to me that someone would write a piece about the ballot measure without actually summarizing what it says, or even *linking* to a summary.
A discussion of prop 37 can be found on ballotpedia and on the CA Secretary of State's voter information website. What should be clear is that much of what we're talking about here (e.g. labeling of accidentally contaminated crops, mandatory testing for genetic alterations) has no bearing on the actual proposal.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Maybe in the US. There are countries that fight it with all their efforts. Monsanto has been kicked out of here years ago (Costa Rica) and many countries follow.
I personally buy 99% of my family's food at the weekend organic market. I spend around $120/week and return with 4 boxes of veggies, pasta, beans, fruits and some import stuff (olives, oil, and some supplements from mostly Peru).
The certification program and requirements are tough and expensive, so the entire weekend fair signed up under one company, posing as one entity with several farms. There are around 50 vendors and their stuff is organic. There are people selling videos, plants and seeds and there is a strong (kind of silent) promotion against modified seeds or anything bad for the environment.
Just to put it out there :) ... of course, even here we are a minority with this diet/mind set. But what's sure, is that GMO crops are not welcome here. BTW my homeland (Hungary) burned all GMO crops on government order last year (or the year before), so Europe is there too, even the eastern part of it.
I suggest you watch "the world according to monsanto", "future of food", "forks over knives" and "flow for the love of water" .... just to name a few.
I do not want to eat plants that are modified to create their own pesticides, create green deserts and at the end use more herbicide than regular crops while creating superweeds.
I am sure there is a scientific approach that can argue why these are not a problem, however all I want (with many others) is a @#$% label on the foods that were produced utilising such technologies, so I can avoid buying them. It is my choice to stick to simple plant based unmodified foods.
I am of course not the usual one: I buy 99% (or more) organic at local markets and do not touch animal products at all. While I did I was sick as hell, so for me it is more than a fashion or trend I should be following....
BTW organic faming does scale. The local universities are just about to offer organic courses after realising that growing quantities without poisons does work even at a place like Costa Rica - trust me, there are a LOT of "pests" here that can eat through your crops if you don't know what you are doing. One key is diversifying instead of a monoculture. Nature does not produce a plantation of one plant specie with one variant as it is designed to be wiped out by one population of one kind of pest in a very short timeframe. Of course there are book-length studies on simple things like this, they (big traditional farming corps) just chose to ignore them and counter-balance with poisons....
If people don't want GM food, isn't there already an option for them in the "Organic" product section?
This labeling effort is about punishing a set of businesses. If GMO was a desirable label, they'd be using it in their marketing So the law forces a set of businesses to put a label on their product that will harm sales, but not necessarily better inform the public. What of the slippery slope on that?
If it's all about information - should every food item sold have a complete labeling of pesticides and precise composition of harmful chemicals contained, as found by the most expensive testing available? Note that even "natural, organic" products will have some level of "toxic" chemicals present; consider how pricey your organic apple would be if each one was sent through a lab for tests before you could even take a bite.
Just because it is accurate information, doesn't mean that it is highly relevant, or that it was worth the cost to present it. GMO isn't toxic; it's not like people are keeling over due to GMO foods; so then it comes down to the rather unreliable food studies to figure out what impact GMO has on the human body.
yeah ... this is the question that should pop in everyone's head as the first thing .....
nobody makes a buck from the introduction of the alien species.
Unless you have something to hide.
Of course, in this case, whichever side has more cash will win, but in a perfect world it would be based on facts and logic and not raw money.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Should a company be able to sell vegetarian food which contains animal products by mislabelling them as "natural flavoring"?
Many people do not want to eat GM food so labeling should be provided accordingly. End of story.
What is genetically modified food?
Does it count off spring? animals fed with it? possible cross breeding?
Labeling GMO is a FUD driven idea. It has no merit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"ost commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer "
wrong. Most has been done to produce a better yield and crop, and addition health benefits.
Yes, it helps the producer, but only by helping the consumer.
"People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, "
Practically imnpossible.
" and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification"
have you ate? then you have consumed GMO.
"f we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that."
The cure to that is to educate people once Glyphosate, since you would need to drink over 85ml at once to have a toxic effect.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
AH yes, the "scientific evidence is counter to your pet belief, therefor its a conspiracy."
They where banned in the EU because of mass protest based on ignorant peoples rantings, NOT because of any good scientific data.
Yes, I have ready the studies. Have you? or are you assuming it was banned, then clearly it was for scientific reasoning and not because of panicky alarmist people?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing,"
That is a straight up lie.
"and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them."
also not true. Here is a fact for you: GMO are tested far more then any other crop, because every other crop isn't tested at all. And Bacteria in the soil can cause genetic changes in crops that are undocumented, and effectively random.
" we'll never really know since we're not allowed to perform the necessary testing."
now you're just being stupid.
Get the hell out of your echo chamber and learn some actual critical thinking skills and apply them, please.
"This stuff is BAD news for humans."
Millions and millions of people eat GMO every day, for decades with no ill effect. What do you base you assertion on?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Yeah, I've got to do something more than a quick google search and link past"
yes, like learn critically thinking, the scientific method and re-evaluate you position when you can't find anything to back it up.
"Many reporting the same thing"
So, that doesn't make it correct. Especially on the internet where any knuckled dragging buffoon can spread lies without recourse.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"It's the same damn thing, except Jews have the good sense to treat anything unlabeled as non-kosher, but anti-GM nuts don't."
Anti-GM don't have anyway to know that's relevant and useful in the store where they shop. What little information there is is non-obvious for economic reasons in favor of big business.
There's a difference between your scenarios.
If a business markets a food item as "vegetarian", they are making an objective claim that there is no meat in said product. If meat was used, the claim is false and they are engaging in fraud (and can be prosecuted for it under existing laws).
With GM foods, unless they claim "No GM ingredients!", there is no fraud. Additionally, GM is not as easy to categorize as vegetarian, kosher, or other labels - hybridization and cross breeding are genetic modifications - but are those really the foods you want to tar with a GM label?
The most important question here is - who is going to pay to collect, certify and regulate this information? It's the people who provide the money - so it's the customers. They will pay the cost in higher prices - so is a GM label really worth making all food more expensive? Why don't non-GM foods adopt marketing labels touting their lack of GM ingredients? If there's so much demand for non-GM foods, there's good profit to be made there, and the marketing campaign would pay for itself. (See "Organic". Hey, that'd be a good label to market non-GM foods; not that there's any inorganic food out there ...)
You're right, let's put the average number of insect and mouse parts per loaf on every loaf of bread sold! Perfect information!
Well it will encourage hygene in food preparation. If customers see that bread X has 10 times the number of mice droppings that bread Y has, then they will reward the makers of X for their effort.
That conventionally-bred gene manipulation you mention, while resulting in similarly granular effects to that of the GE, has the benefit of using mechanisms and pathways which have stood the test of those 2 billion years without resulting in catastrophic species loss or damage - *that's* why it gets a free pass .... in my book, anyway.
What about chemical or radiation-induced mutagenesis? I work in the ag biotech industry and I can tell you with 100% certainty that at least some of the cultivars marketed as clearfield wheat were developed using at least the former technique*. Both techniques have been used to create new cultivars in practically all major crops (both food crops and ornamental crops) that can be sold as Organic. That being said, while you have made an appeal to authority as a scientist, the basis of the argument you've made above is completely non-scientific. That is not to say that your objection is illegitimate, but establishing that it is non-scientific is important (I'll explain why later).
Also, the "mechanisms and pathways which have stood the test of those 2 billion years" result in "catastrophic species loss or damage" all the time . Not all dinosaurs became birds--most just became fossils. Disruptive innovation (to use a less grim and more /.-friendly term) is the norm in the biological sphere, so you might need to revoke your free pass :).
There is no way we can possibly safely understand the full implications of inserting a fish gene into a tomato to improve shelf-life.
As a physicist, you should also know that there is no way we can possibly understand the full implications of moving my coffee mug to the other side of my desk because the n-body problem is unsolvable. We can only approximate the likely effect. Not trying to be glib, just pointing out that not being able to possibly understand the full implications of something is the definition of FUD, not a strong argument against a given action. To be useful in the real world, we have to start talking about probabilities, and how we can gain a working (if not absolute) understanding of the likely consequences of a given action or class of actions.
I hesitate to invoke Hawking style religiosity but I will: Genetic Engineering is "playing God" (no, I'm anything but Christian) when IMHO there is no way we are anywhere near competent yet to exercise such ability. We need to exercise more humility instead. This beautiful planet is the only one we have, or are likely to have for some considerable time to come, and it should be treated with kid gloves.
Funny you should say this, because this is the exact line of reasoning some of my Biologist colleagues use to argue objections to physics experiments being run at the LHC, Fermilab, etc. I try to tell them that while particle accelerators can theoretically produce "micro black holes", it is only true in the literal sense that they can compress mass into a volume smaller than the Schwarzchild radius for that mass. They do not understand that the probability that such a black hole would subsequently swallow the earth is like the probability that two mobsters separated by 100 meters, each emptying 100 drums of ammo at eachother via tommy guns, walk away completely unscathed because every single bullet from mobster A collided in mid-air with a bullet from mobster B. Some effectively think that by using the LHC we're likely to end up creating 'red matter' from the Star Trek reboot. Suffice it to say that quantum physics is a sufficiently advanced field such that otherwise brilliant biologists will not necessarily have even a basic working understanding of the field.
Getting back to biology, the same argument above is just as applicable to modern medicinal technologies, such as the use of synthetic antibiotics, as it is to GMOs. Every time we apply an antibiotic treatment, for example, we roll the di
Arrogance will be the end of our species.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
The limits exist because it's widely accepted that it's impossible to keep all vermin out of food stocks. The limits are allowed to remain because it's widely accepted that a certain amount of insect parts being ingested is not unhealthy (indeed, in many parts of the world, insects are main courses). Why induce market forces on elements which simply don't matter?
Are you going to indemnify me against suits from companies such as Monsanto who disagree with the legal advice you are providing here?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
So why not have the same standard in GMO food? Since GMO is not impossible to keep out of food, then have it marked.
I would agree that setting limits to the amount of GMO food that may be present in food is not the way to go. There is no evidence that GMO is harmful to humans (yet at least). So set a maximum % (0.01% or something, just enough to cover accidental pollination) that is allowed in food without being labeled. Anything above that, and the people eating it have a right to know.
And if the limit is ignored by the maker, then the people have a right to sue. Just like in cases where they find a mummified rat in their flour.
Yes, absolutely, 100% indemnity.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe