Congressional Panel: Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling

I put this in the 'US Political Madness' forum because it is just that, MADNESS!!
However MODS, please move if need be......

Now according to Congress, we Americans are too 'Stupid' to read labels and decide for ourselves regarding GMO foods

WASHINGTON -- It's pretty rare that members of Congress and all the witnesses they've called will declare out loud that Americans are just too ignorant to be given a piece of information, but that was a key conclusion of a session of the House Agriculture Committee this week.

The issue was genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they're often known in the food industry. And members of the subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, as well as their four experts, agreed that the genetic engineering of food crops has been a thorough success responsible for feeding the hungry, improving nutrition and reducing the use of pesticides.

People who oppose GMOs or want them labeled so that consumers can know what they're eating are alarmists who thrive on fear and ignorance, the panel agreed. Labeling GMO foods would only stoke those fears, and harm a beneficial thing, so it should not be allowed, the lawmakers and witnesses agreed.

Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling, Congressional Panel Says

And then there is this...it's okay to place this on the label but not 'GMO' specifically...

The issue may soon gain fresh relevance on Capitol Hill, where a measure backed by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) to stop states from requiring GMO labeling could get marked up as early as September. The bill also would allow genetically engineered food to be labeled "100 percent natural."

"100% natural".....yeah, play the word game fellas
Now that ^^^^is 'stupid' and misleading!!!



So basically, we are dumb and ignorant and we need our dearly beloved *cough* government to make the decision for us where GMO's are concerned because they know what's best for us...[/sarcasm]


Well, I like to make my own decisions, thank you very much
I don't need Big Brother to do jack for me, other than RESPECT me and allowing me my right to decide what foods I care to eat

Just like people that have allergies, out of RESPECT for them, the labels ought to state all ingredients including any GMO, so that the consumer can make the best choice for themselves

Companies put 'high fructose corn syrup' on the ingredients, so IMO they can also add GMO to that list as well


Well TPTB, it's up to the people to decide, fear mongering or not
The government has no place making that decision for us and who the hell do they think they are calling us 'stupid'????
Let's all remember that on Voting day!!!






***my apologies if this has already been posted.
Did a search but nothing came up***

!@#$ Let us have the choice, sure most won't buy it just like organics because it will probably be more expensive.

a reply to: snarky412

What do you expect Islam Siddiqui a former Monsanto lobbyist wrote the USDA food standards,theres also ex Monsanto FDA commissioners and high ranking EPA staff.

a reply to: snarky412

It's true, most people cant even read the labels on packages now.

www.fda.gov...

originally posted by: roth1
!@#$ Let us have the choice, sure most won't buy it just like organics because it will probably be more expensive.

Well like with high fructose corn syrup...when they first came out with it, it was cheaper and more cost effective for the companies to make higher profits
Now years later, some scientists are back peddling, now that more research is showing that it may be worse than previously thought on people's overall health, hence why many manufacturers are placing on their labels now, 'NO hfcs'

Overall, all ingredients need to be labeled, not just lumped into one category as '100% natural'...that right there is a fraudulent statement IMO
But what do I know....I'm stupid!!

a reply to: snarky412

Here is an idea that I hope will get picked up and gather steam.

Let's get a bill pushed through that requires all foods that do NOT contain GMOs to require a label that states "NO GMOs"....

Or, maybe the producers of natural foods will decide to do this on their own....

Silly yes, but just might work..

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: snarky412

It's true, most people cant even read the labels on packages now.

www.fda.gov...

Oh man, whew, boy that was a tough read....*sigh*

Glad I made it through college without reading problems!!
Don't know how I made it this far in life without the overwhelming concern of our government, taking it on their own to make it easy for me to read these dang labels

I'm sure my teachers will be heartbroken to know all my education was for nothing....

originally posted by: snarky412
Well TPTB, it's up to the people to decide, fear mongering or not
The government has no place making that decision for us and who the hell do they think they are calling us 'stupid'????

Let's all remember that on Voting day!!!

Does this joke have a punchline?

Not to be cruel but do you honestly think the vote counters give two craps? Do you honestly think we the people are going to do anything about TPTB?

Here's hoping.

"The bill also would allow genetically engineered food to be labeled "100 percent natural.""

I just don't have words.

a reply to: snarky412

"Congressional panel" = "Monsanto propaganda mouthpiece"

Yes, and the POTUS's are supersmart mensa society types...../sarc

The GMO labels are an issue yes.

I for one are concerned about how much pesticide and weed killer residues are still in the final products.

That may be more important than anything else.

Here's a Q&A about this;


Expert Answer(s):


Question

How much pesticide and / or weed killer gets absorbed into freshly planted GM seeds from residual amounts in the soil from previous treatments ? And how much gets absorbed by plants through roots after new treatments ? And, do end products retain any pesticide or weed killer amounts (other than washable surface amounts) that would be unsafe to humans ? Who determines safe levels if any levels do in fact exist ? And finally, are different amounts absorbed by non-GM originated plants ?

Question Submitted by: xuenchen from chicago, Illinois

Answer

Your questions all relate to the safety of pesticide residues that may occur in GM crops. That’s a reasonable concern given the rapid adoption and widespread use of GM crops. Importantly, since crops tolerant to herbicides such as glyphosate are very popular among farmers, spraying of glyphosate could lead to residues of the active ingredient in the forage or grain that is consumed by animals or humans. When farmers spray fields to eliminate weeds that compete with the crop and reduce yield, the vast majority of the glyphosate enters plants through the leaves. Glyphosate is tightly bound to soil, and little or no glyphosate is taken up from the soil, either by newly planted seeds or by existing plants, whether GM or non-GM. One of the reasons that glyphosate is so popular with farmers is that farmers can safely plant other crops after using glyphosate without impacts on the subsequent crop. Over time, soil microorganisms break down any glyphosate residues in the soil.

Any glyphosate residues that remain in the plant decrease over time following application, and are less in grain compared to leaves. Processing of grain for use in food also reduces detectible residues. For example, there is no detectible glyphosate present in the oil fraction in soybean or corn oil.

Finally, since there is the potential for residues of glyphosate to remain in forage and grain used in animal feed and human foods, the levels must be measured across many locations and environments to determine the highest levels that might be present. In the US, the EPA is responsible to examine all uses of pesticides and must examine the residue data and establish safe levels of exposure. All uses must be approved and the combined exposure from all crops must be below the acceptable dose level established by the EPA. This process was described previously in detail on this site. That answer can be found at: (gmoanswers.com...). Other countries follow similar procedures within their regulatory agencies.



Answered by: Marian Bleeke on Thursday, 10/17/2013 7:02 pm

Fate and Metabolism Platform Lead, Monsanto

I joined Monsanto in 1984 after receiving my Ph.D. in Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry from the University of California – Berkeley. I am part of the Regulatory Environmental Sciences Technology Center, and have spent my career on understanding how Monsanto’s agricultural chemical products behave in the environment. We study what happens to our products in plants, animals, soil and water, and determine the potential for environmental and human exposure, in order to ensure that our products can be used safely.

Expert Answer(s):

I stopped voting a long time ago so I don't really care what congress hs to say. plus, congress just mails it in anyway. they stopped doing they're jobs a long long tima ago, so when you say congress to me, it's the same as saying fossil. glad monsanto was mentioned. they're a business. they have to make a profit to survive. unlike congress which just takes your money at gun point and dares you to stop them. eventually? We Will !

a reply to: thesaneone

I don't see anything in there that points to dumber consumers, in fact the opposite. According to the FDA, more and more people are using nutrition labels for a variety of health reasons. If you've ever been on a diet that includes calorie counting, so on and so forth, you would know that it can be a pain. This is just making it easier and more realistic. few people just drink 1.5 of a soda and so the actual "serving size" being the whole soda should reflect that. Many marketers try and trick and be deceptive in that sense.

The new nutrition labels are using the same formatting psychology as any clever marketer would, but in a good way. Highlighting and drawing the eye to important information. Think you aren't a victim of marketing tricks than think again, most psychologists go into marketing. It's not that people are dumb, it's marketing is using psychology against them.

Back on topic. This is just congress scratching the backs of business. I'm sure they whipped out their violins, cried about loss of business and it's impact on the economy, loss of jobs blah blah. GMO's whole PR statement is about how they are the new innovative way to keep up the demand of the food supply. It's like oil giants fighting electric cars or solar power. Fear of change and the costs associated with true innovation will always halt our progress.

Corporate America....Ramen.

Congress patting themselves on the back for succesfully dumbing down the public with it propaganda .. erm .. education system ..

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: snarky412

What do you expect Islam Siddiqui a former Monsanto lobbyist wrote the USDA food standards,theres also ex Monsanto FDA commissioners and high ranking EPA staff.

Yep....they are bed-fellows, the FDA and Monsanto

Interesting read here, on Michael Taylor, who is/was a lawyer/advisor that has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto/ FDA /USDA
Now he's in a newly created position at the FDA, this time as Deputy Commissioner for Foods

originally posted by: defuntion
a reply to: snarky412

Here is an idea that I hope will get picked up and gather steam.

Let's get a bill pushed through that requires all foods that do NOT contain GMOs to require a label that states "NO GMOs"....

Or, maybe the producers of natural foods will decide to do this on their own....

Silly yes, but just might work..

Actually, many companies may do this, like they did with the milk from cows that were treated with BGH
Also, many are putting on labels 'NO high fructose corn syrup' for the consumers

you are fu**ed...

it will take some time...but we, here in Europe, are gonna be fu**ed with this also.

I'm glad I wont live a hundred years...just to not be here when this sickness takes hold.

We have no morals left...everything is second to profit...the end is near

a reply to: xuenchen

Interesting. I'm no chemist, however glyphosphate only makes up 41% of the product in roundup. The other percent is a surfactant to increase the permeability of the glyphoshate.
Round up Label :[Roundup

Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) is a surfactant that enhances the activity of herbicides such as glyphosate. The role of a surfactant in a herbicide product is to improve wettability of the hydrophobic surface of plants for maximum coverage and aid penetration through the plant surface

To say that Roundup kills pests, weeds, etc.. but somehow magically doesn't get into the food supply seems like utter bunk. This person is speaking "lawyer".

a reply to: snarky412

"American citizens are too stupid to make a choice." Basically.

Actually, that seems quite appropriate. They'll just eat it up.

Translation: "We in congress have been sufficiently bribed by the manufacturers of a product so as to declare it unnecessary to label said potentially harmful product...again." Thanks for playing.

They gotta protect the companies* that fund and pay for them. Aka garbage foods I mean Kraft*, etc., for example. But to come right out and say it, people want to defend them now? Hah, well it's pretty funny that MSM is picking up on the organics study that came out lately. Haha, going to counter that with this kind of demeaning "defense" now?