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.'"
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.
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.
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..."
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
Why not? The outcome of the vote is the only consequence that will make an actual difference, and votes are won through advertising, not facts. Anybody with money understands this already, and is using this to their advantage every chance they can.
Do try to keep up.
John
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.
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.
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
There was a pretense?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
How can it be anti-science to put a truthful blurb on something which says what it is?
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?
"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."
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season... you have to buy more seed from Monsanto. Said sterilized crops escaping the fields and contaminating other crops. Massive die-offs of bees. Evidence of liver damage.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".
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.
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.
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
That's how politics work in America. There are hardly any politicians in existence today that give a shit about anything other than their bank account. I can't think of any offhand that aren't scumbags, but I'm sure there must be at least one out there somewhere.
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?
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 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'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)-
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.
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.
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.
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
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).