It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate rejects bid to label genetically modified food

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 



the most basic of topics

Yet, so complex many people fail to understand the very simple fact that GMO foods should be labelled.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Mod Edit: Don't edit mod edits/actions!
edit on 22-6-2012 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Gemwolf
 



the most basic of topics

Yet, so complex many people fail to understand the very simple fact that GMO foods should be labelled.


If GMO is to be labelled than Organic needs a review as well. There is too much money and corruption on both sides for either one to have free reign over the other.

Right now GMO has an advantage with not having to label.
But organic has an advantage with lax regulation, lax oversight, and marketing that is borderline false.

They both need a revision IMO.

And no, I do not agree with the lobbying efforts of Monsanto whether or not I eat GMO food. Completely unrelated to the GMO issue. (Besides the focus)

The real issue, is that corporations can have this much influence in the government.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
The real issue, is that corporations can have this much influence in the government.


No... the issue being discussed in this thread is the failure of the legislators to enact a simple regulation that would result in a more well-informed public. That they have done so under the influence of corporate lobbyists is secondary to the focus of this topic.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Technically they are full of genetically added material that produces chemicals. But regular plants produce chemicals. Regular plants produce enzymes. Some have made these over millennia through evolution for certain issues that the plant has with nature.

Genetic engineering is in a sense, intelligently designing our food supply. While there are some negatives associated with this, there are also a number of negatives associated with "natural" plants as well.

I've grown organic before. Bug infestations were terrible. Used insane amounts of "natural" pesticides. Never really wanted to eat it after.




The problem is that the odd disease and bug plague can kill large amounts of crops.


Bug plague = See: Pesticide use.


Further to this thought, since I referenced no material that supported the point I was making, I offer this:


All foods, whether or not they are genetically engineered, carry potentially hazardous substances or pathogenic microbes and must be properly and prudently assessed to ensure a reasonable degree of safety," the report notes.

And it goes on: "History provides examples of traditional breeding that resulted in potentially hazardous foods .. Solanaceous (tobacco family) crops, such as potato and tomato, naturally produce various steroidal glycoalkaloids .... During the course of ordinary plant breeding assessments, breeding lines with increased levels of glycoalkaloids may be identified by the breeder as showing superior insect or disease resistance and retained for possible commercial release. The elevation of glycoalkaloid levels responsible for the pest tolerance may not be noted until people become ill from consuming the foods.”

New chemicals can also arise from such breeding. The review cites a case where geneticists bred the cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum) with a wild potato (Solanum brevidens). The hybrid produced a toxic alkaloid called demissidine, even though neither parent potatoes had contained it.


"Natural" breeding selection can produce toxins in plants no different than genetic engineering.

In other words, it's very much in the same. Although GE offers a few things that go beyond standard hybridization.



AMA on the GMO labelling issue.
edit on 22-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by boncho
The real issue, is that corporations can have this much influence in the government.


No... the issue being discussed in this thread is the failure of the legislators to enact a simple regulation that would result in a more well-informed public. That they have done so under the influence of corporate lobbyists is secondary to the focus of this topic.


Unless they put as much focused on the organic industry as they do the GMO industry, the public will not be informed properly.

The organic lobby was pushing for this to go through. They didn't get it. I suspect the GMO lobby will now push for tougher legislation and regulation for organic.

I hope neither get it, or both do. If they are on even playing ground than so be it.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Your comparing Companies that buy politicians to prevent labeling of GM foods to organic farms? They are equally corrupt? Now that is just silly.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by boncho
 


Your comparing Companies that buy politicians to prevent labeling of GM foods to organic farms? They are equally corrupt? Now that is just silly.


I still don't fully understand Kastel, who's backing him or what his agenda is, but even he says:


According to the findings in The Organic Watergate paper released by the Institute, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has taken a turn for the worse in recent years. It also illustrates how currently almost 300 non-organic and synthetic compounds are approved for use in organic farming or food production.


Link


Despite what most people believe, field testing to ensure the integrity of certified-organic crops and livestock does not occur. Organic certification is granted under a complicated bureaucratic system of record-keeping. That’s it. This leaves the door wide open to fraud, as well as gross overstatements and misleading marketing campaigns that claim organic foods provide a safer, more nutritious alternative for concerned consumers.


Link

I'm still confused a bit over the whole Cornicopia vs. Poppof feud, somehow George Soros is in there too.


12. What does Cornucopia have to gain?
Q: You have said that Cornucopia receives funding from Organic Valley Family of Farms Brand (a company that Cornucopia founder Mark Kastel used to work for) and liberal billionaire George Soros. But Fantel denies this saying "[we] fully stand by our independence as an organic industry watchdog." Who's telling the truth?

A: If Cornucopia is really independent, then who funds them? They don't produce anything; they don't even sell their services. So where do they get their money? Well, it turns out they get all of their funding from liberal funding institutions, institutions which get their money from... wait for it... Organic Valley and George Soros! Fantel might try to claim he was not aware of this, but I figured it out; why didn't he?

I have asked Cornucopia numerous times to post a complete list of all their funding sources. So far they refuse to do so. Meanwhile, I have no funding sources. None. Sorry guys.


www.isitorganic.ca...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by boncho
 


Your comparing Companies that buy politicians to prevent labeling of GM foods to organic farms? They are equally corrupt? Now that is just silly.


Why do you say organic farms, when its a 30 billion dollar industry and a large market share is controlled by either the same type of corporations that are involved in GMO food production?




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Why do you say organic farms, when its a 30 billion dollar industry and a large market share is controlled by either the same type of corporations that are involved in GMO food production?



Dude, why are continuing to derail this thread with off-topic drivel? This thread is about the labeling of GMO foods. It has nothing to do with the organic foods industry.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



If GMO is to be labelled than Organic needs a review as well. There is too much money and corruption on both sides for either one to have free reign over the other.

You are tap dancing around the core issue here. Clearly labeling GMO food is not a "review" process, it's a simple fact-of-matter labeling which ought be clear in the first place. You want organic growers to have more regulation? Fine I don't give a crap if it makes organic food safer... what ever. But that has no bearing on the simple fact GMO foods should be labelled as such. It has nothing to do with the safety of GMO food, it isn't a review process, it's simply letting the customer know what they are buying so they can make informed decisions about what they put into their body. It also has NOTHING do to with competitive advantages or any of that bullcrap, why are you stating things in such corporate terms? If I didn't know any better I'd say you had something invested in the success of GMO foods. Furthermore, if GMO food is labelled properly and many people consciously choose to buy organic instead, and the GMO industry starts to lose money... TOO BAD, that's how the business world works, the best product succeeds and the loser takes the hit. They are using the manufactured ignorance of their customers to make their product artificially successful by hiding the true nature of their product from their customers. It's absolutely disgusting and the SIMPLE truth is that people should know what they are buying.
edit on 22/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by boncho
Why do you say organic farms, when its a 30 billion dollar industry and a large market share is controlled by either the same type of corporations that are involved in GMO food production?



Dude, why are continuing to derail this thread with off-topic drivel? This thread is about the labeling of GMO foods. It has nothing to do with the organic foods industry.


Even if the Organic Lobby was pushing for the labelling? Spending money on it... Trying to exploit it.

Idonno.

Seems related.


Anti-Science Hippies Make Progress Toward Labelling GMOs (Except Organic Ones)

They say they are promoting transparency and trust, but those are two things lacking in the Organic Food industry, since dozens and dozens of inorganic ingredients are allowed without it losing its 'label', there is no surprise checking of organic farms and 25 % of imported organic food has been found to be not organic at all, even more in the actual countries we are importing organic food from.

And what is exempt from the initiative? Organic food made using plants or animals with engineered genetic material - GMOs. That's right, traditional food with GMOs would need to be labeled but not organic ones. Oh, and alcohol is exempt too.


Link

To be honest, I have fully wrapped my head around this. Perhaps smaller companies competitive to Monsanto are behind the organic/GMO (Labeled organic) collective.

Organic Consumers Fund

The Organic Consumers Fund is focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action to promote organic and sustainable food and farming, health, peace, justice, sustainability, and democracy.


It has grassroots in the description, so it must be good?

These are the people that started this whole debate by the way. Even though you think everything related is "off topic".

Ahhh, the OCA, isn't there director?

The man who was quoted as saying:


At a June 2001 protest outside a Washington, D.C. Starbucks coffeehouse, he conceded that his strategy depends on “the fact that most consumers aren’t smart enough to know what they want.”



Yup, that Ronnie Cummins.

Link

The OCA is behind the OFC. The OCA claims to have 800,000 people in grassroots support. (aka brainwashing or beneficial relationship)

The OCA was created when the USDA was going to regulate Organics.


The Organic Consumers Association was formed in 1998 in the wake of the mass backlash by organic consumers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's controversial proposed national regulations for organic food.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


Absolutely correct. If everyone boycotts particular brands or goes organic, this will be how we can stick it right back to em!
I can't believe how blatantly these corps try and deceive us just to make a buck.. Disgusting.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


You are tap dancing around the core issue here. Clearly labeling GMO food is not a "review" process, it's a simple fact-of-matter labeling which ought be clear in the first place. You want organic growers to have more regulation? Fine I don't give a crap if it makes organic food safer... what ever. But that has no bearing on the simple fact GMO foods should be labelled as such. It has nothing to do with the safety of GMO food, it isn't a review process, it's simply letting the customer know what they are buying so they can make informed decisions about what they put into their body. It also has NOTHING do to with competitive advantages or any of that bullcrap, why are you stating things in such corporate terms? If I didn't know any better I'd say you had something invested in the success of GMO foods. Furthermore, if GMO food is labelled properly and many people consciously choose to buy organic instead, and the GMO industry starts to lose money... TOO BAD, that's how the business world works, the best product succeeds and the loser takes the hit. They are using the manufactured ignorance of their customers to make their product artificially successful by hiding the true nature of their product from their customers. It's absolutely disgusting and the SIMPLE truth is that people should know what they are buying.

 



You are being rather shortsighted on the issue.

I have no problem with GMOs being labelled but if they are then Organics need to be more than just *certified* with more than spot checks to make sure they are actually selling organic products.

Informed consumerism I am not against in any way.

What you are not addressing is the companies besides Monsanto that have a stake in both the GMO field and Organics. Monsanto in alternative media has become a pariah while others skate by pushing their own agendas.



We are a group of farmers who think that many certification-bodies leave the door open to organic fraud. They rely on ‘confidence’ more than on controle. Confidence may have been good enough for those farms who started the organic movement, but now it proves to be insufficient.

We want this: :

– All production units (farms, packing stations) should be known to the public ( internet) : the full adress, surface area and usual crops.

- Every production unit should be controlled unanounced at least once a year by an inspector.


Organic Fraud

At the same time, Monsanto et al deserve their criticism because of the tactics they use and have had most of the organic suppliers giving up and selling partially contaminated GMO food as organic.


WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called “natural” foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI’s sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.


Link

It seems Whole Foods and others don't want the labelling because they sell GMO food as organic. Just not 100% organic. They would possibly lose that if the GMO labelling came out.

So technically, some of the organic suppliers were against this action as well. Not sure how they would be affected if they are only using partially modified materials.

The point that I was making was that if a company finds a way to skirt buy the labelling selling GMO food as organic, they would be getting a competitive advantage. And because suppliers/distributors of organic materials are selling contaminated product as well, food producers would be selling organic labels with possible contamination.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TH3S33K3R
reply to post by draco49
 


Absolutely correct. If everyone boycotts particular brands or goes organic, this will be how we can stick it right back to em!
I can't believe how blatantly these corps try and deceive us just to make a buck.. Disgusting.


If a one-day boycott of a particular brand is organized, that company will lose millions of dollars. The only thing these corporate monsters understand is money, so the answer is to hit them in the pocket. I would be willing to lead and organize such a boycott, and would invite anyone who is interested to submit potential companies to boycott.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
You are being rather shortsighted on the issue.

I have no problem with GMOs being labelled but if they are then Organics need to be more than just *certified* with more than spot checks to make sure they are actually selling organic products.

Informed consumerism I am not against in any way.

What you are not addressing is the companies besides Monsanto that have a stake in both the GMO field and Organics. Monsanto in alternative media has become a pariah while others skate by pushing their own agendas.


I agree with what you're saying about the issue with *organic* products. The label should be meaningful, and if appropriate steps are not being taken to ensure the integrity of the labeling system, that should be addressed. The fact that GMO products can also be grown organically further muddies the water. In the case of GMO products, I firmly believe that the consumer deserves to be well informed, regardless of whether or not it is a matter of importance to everyone. Bottom line: people have the right to know what they are buying and putting into their bodies.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by TH3S33K3R
reply to post by draco49
 


Absolutely correct. If everyone boycotts particular brands or goes organic, this will be how we can stick it right back to em!
I can't believe how blatantly these corps try and deceive us just to make a buck.. Disgusting.


If a one-day boycott of a particular brand is organized, that company will lose millions of dollars. The only thing these corporate monsters understand is money, so the answer is to hit them in the pocket. I would be willing to lead and organize such a boycott, and would invite anyone who is interested to submit potential companies to boycott.


Who would boycott GMO food producers? Organic consumers?

Not much of a boycott..



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by boncho
You are being rather shortsighted on the issue.

I have no problem with GMOs being labelled but if they are then Organics need to be more than just *certified* with more than spot checks to make sure they are actually selling organic products.

Informed consumerism I am not against in any way.

What you are not addressing is the companies besides Monsanto that have a stake in both the GMO field and Organics. Monsanto in alternative media has become a pariah while others skate by pushing their own agendas.


I agree with what you're saying about the issue with *organic* products. The label should be meaningful, and if appropriate steps are not being taken to ensure the integrity of the labeling system, that should be addressed. The fact that GMO products can also be grown organically further muddies the water. In the case of GMO products, I firmly believe that the consumer deserves to be well informed, regardless of whether or not it is a matter of importance to everyone. Bottom line: people have the right to know what they are buying and putting into their bodies.


Well here is something we can agree on.

My concern is that a loophole is formed where GMO foods are labelled, but other GMO foods manage to skirt by under the organic moniker.

To me, personally, it means nothing because I will eat GMO foods. But for the people that have issue with it, they deserve to have a workable system that isn't lying to them.

Otherwise, whats the point.

However, I do feel the organic crowd has been manipulated heavily. Personal opinion. If they get GMO labelling though, they need to get adequate assurance that Organic labelling is legit.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Who would boycott GMO food producers? Organic consumers?

Not much of a boycott..


I was actually thinking more of one-day mass boycotts of major food manufacturers who use GMO products and have lobbied against the labeling. Companies such as General Mills, Kellog, Nestle, etc. Hitting the companies that make use of GMO products and are against labeling are much easier to target than a company like Monsanto. If enough people participate in such boycotts, the message that consumers demand labeling will quickly make its way up the chain.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Tampering with the food chain should be considered to be as bad of a crime as genocide. Sounds like Monsanto is organizing its' own Auschwitz scenario.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join