Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

It is sort of a ploy though to some extent the whole gmo labeling. Pretty much anything that's not organic and has soy and/or corn in particular is going to be gmo. So consumers should already know without their even being a label. I think at the deeper level both government officials supportive of gmo labeling and monsanto know that, which is why it seems more of an attack than anything else. Sort of adding insult to injury for monsanto, or just pointing out the obvious.

Being that most food isn't organic, pretty much all processed food will contain such a label. Rather comical really, overnight 90% of food has this gmo label. Besides just the hit to monsanto's pockets, they might feel a slight sense of.....awkwardness?

Monsanto does have a bee research branch. But of course, that must be to come up with better ways to kill them. Right?

reply to post by Phage


no, just better ways to exploit them,... like us ,right?

as to your link...

Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and other agrichemical companies say other factors such as mites are killing the bees.

Wow,... NBC really dug deep into the mysteries of GMO...

You make sense, but there is already a lot of companies that get USDA organic verified it wouldn't be any different than doing that to all the food.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Every food has the things that compose it on the label, every pharmaceutical drug has the risks associated with taking it, everything that's a beauty cosmetic is tested beyond belief to ensure that side effects are minimized. Why should we not be aware that we are ingesting GMO foods? I, for one, am in favor of creating certain types of modified food to improve vitamin content on our food, but common, why aren't they warning us? Why isn't there a long run test underway? 90 days does nothing to test something genetically modified, only if it's a mutation of the T-Virus or something like that. We need to test these for years before making them available for the general public and each and every GMO food should be categorized as such. Let people choose what they eat for a change.

No not all food is GMO. The oranges I buy are not genetically laced with a chemical carcinogen at the DNA level. It is mostly corn and soy. But not ALL corn is GMO either as there is in fact organic corn on the market. However, the fact that much of the "manufactured" food the Western consumer purchases for home is laced with synthesized compounds derived nearly exclusively from GMO corn. Maltodextrose, corn syrup, and a host of other corn derived "preservatives, caking and anti-caking agent" come to mind.

Any food that does not exist in a natural state is a manufactured food, and it is this food that will primarily bear the brunt of GMO labeling. Anyone that has truly old school family such as parents and grand parents from rural living or foreign less developed countries will testify to how often they simply buy raw ingredients and cook their own food.

My grandmother pretty much eats like this exclusively. Its rice and beans/lentils, potatoes, raw vegetables and fruits which she cooks into various meals using the same real foods. The bulk of that food may not be organic, but it is also mostly not GMO.

Now if you live on a diet of prepared frozen meals, cereal, flour, pasta, chips, cookies, and crackers, virtually any and all desserts, pancakes, instant shakes and so on that is where the majority of GMO ingredients end up. However, there was a time when corn was not chemically laced at the DNA level with a nasty herbicide/pesticide. I think it was all of human and natural existence prior to about twenty years ago.

Now if some people want to consume such a thing, by all means have at it. But freaking label it so at least the average person knows they are consuming manufactured food containing poisoned ingredients. Whoever does not see it as poison go and drink just a cup of Roundup® and get back to us.

Then what, the argument becomes its such a miniscule amount of said poison over a lifetime. Well then why do we not just use gasoline, turpentine, or drain cleaner into the DNA of our food as well or in place of this Roundup®??

I did not have a choice as a child because I did not know, and neither did my parents. Now that we all know what is in the food, I would like to make that choice for me and my child. I just need see properly labeled products.

Thankfully because of my obsession with dental hygiene we don't really purchase cookies and chips or soda anymore. So in our diet of manufactured foods, it really only leaves pancakes and waffles, breakfast cereals/oatmeal/grits, pasta and beverages to buy organic. Since we only rarely enjoy a soda and NEVER EVER drink anything from concentrate, we good on the beverages. Looks mostly like breakfast items and pasta really.

It is a rough road to navigate, but well worth it to avoid intentionally ingesting poison laced foods.
.
Also like to add, that while I do not intend on leveling accusations on some members of being directly paid by, working for certain companies to try and dissuade popular opinion against GMO, or raising merits for it, it seems more likely to me certain members may simply have a "vested interest/stake" in the very companies promoting said products. Either pre-existing or newly acquired. Cant blame someone for trying to protect their pension, money market or financial portfolio from losing value due to investments they may or may not have previously known about until said individuals have time to diversify. Obviously that is pure speculation.

reply to post by Phage


even better, dont put gmo into anything, there you go all those issues solved, no more gmo's ever again.

problems solved.

Looks like the consensus is that most people want GMO foods to be labeled.

Looks like another Phage Phail.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GrimReaper86

 

I would think of it more like a wave. As people catch on to what's good for them they will buy more "Contains No GMOs" foods then foods that don't have that label assuming they are available and affordable.

Sure. Just like organic food has taken over the marketplace.

While organic food has certainly not taken over the marketplace, it occupies a niche, and it's a not inconsequential niche. Organic produce is no stranger to the current marketplace, occupying shops of their own, as well as having a dedicated aisle in 2 of the largest (and most influential) supermarkets in Australia.

My family moved to Australia from the U.S in 1971, and my mother says the food choices for vegetarians (and anyone else in possession of functional taste buds) were exceedingly grim. Spaghetti came from a tin, and garlic was considered an exotic food, coming from those weird foreign I-tal-i-ans, and those pagan Catholics are not our kind of people either (you can imagine how well a family of Jewish, American accented hippies, with a coterie of long-haired hippie children went down in those more culturally homogenous times).

40 plus years later on, and a huge diversity of dietary needs can be catered for in the capital cities, while decent coffee and non-Anglo food can be had at many a regional centre. Hell, even places with names like Balranald and Manangatang offer delights like sprouted mung beans and soya milk.

Organic food (and gluten free, biodynamic, halal, kosher etc) is no longer a stranger to the Australian palate, and while the Aussie meat pie with tomato sauce retains it ubiquity, it's no longer the main dish on the menu with your other choice being steak and chips cooked in beer batter.

So yes, organic produce has by no means taken over the marketplace, it certainly has made a noticeable impact. I think there are a lot more people concerned with what goes in their bodies, and among my own peers (university educated and middle class), while not strictly vegetarian nor regular buyers of organic produce, there seems a general distrust of GMO products.

As I stated in a prior post, I'm not aware of (nor do I have a clear understanding of) the science involved with GMO food, and I would guess most of my peers (with the exception of a few) share this distrust. I find this interesting in light of the fact that my peers are technologically literate, and are active participants in this modern world, yet for better or worse, there's not much faith in this (seemingly) frontier science, and all that comes with it. It's an interesting dichotomy, in some ways seeming quite paradoxical.

reply to post by Phage


Sorry, but it seems you clearly don't understand the issue. Which is unusual for you. If, like my wife, you have a serious health issue that can be traced back to some substance, in her case MSG, a label that says 'may contain MSG' on all food condemns her to have to grow her own. Not nice.

Labelling something as GMO is step 1, but far from sufficient. The exact type of GMO modification is important. Adding some nature identical sequences to add Vit E production into a sweet potato is more likely to be benign than adding resistance to roundup, that seems to be having some unwanted effects.

All this is the cost of run-away corporate greed and corruption. It doesn't help to sweep that cost under another consumer risk rug. If labelling is so expensive, maybe fixing the irresponsibility and corruption that systemically causes the need for labelling is the cheaper option.

Also good labelling is cheaper than molecular testing and makes everyone safer. Anyone that resists decent labelling probably has something to hide, I think.

What I find really sad is that irresponsible, greed driven GMO is limiting the amazing potential of doing it well.

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by Kody27

 

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

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

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

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

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

apples and oranges, my friend...

a person doesn't NEED to smoke, to continue living...it is voluntary...it is something that person CHOOSES To do...

people NEED to eat, in order to continue living......

in other words, tobacco is optional, food is not.....you can choose to smoke or not smoke, you can not choose to not eat....

Really? People don't NEED to consume GMO's to live either, but they do. The difference is, it's worse because we need to eat and we're being cornered to eat GMO's only. A person can choose to eat organic but they'll have to pay out the ass. So it's not apples and oranges, it's apples and apples. They're both choices and both unnecessary for life, GMO's is not a requirement to live, as a matter of fact I'd say it's right up there with cigarettes genius.

reply to post by Bone75

GMO milk doesn't contain genetically modified organisms, it is produced by a genetically modified organism. GMO corn doesn't contain genetically modified organisms, it IS a genetically modified organism.

Yes. And that is exactly the point.

Mandatory labeling uses the same terminology.
Note the wording on Proposition 37. The California initiative:

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

Here is the wording on EU labeling:

The term "genetically modified..." or "produced from genetically modified..." must be clearly visible on the label.

But you sort of missed the main point, that it cannot be proven that a product is free of GMO material. Testing methods are insufficient to determine that. That is why the EU has changed their standards.

Today’s regulations are based on a different principle: All food products that make direct use of GMOs at any point in their production are subjected to labelling requirements, regardless of whether or not GM content is detectable in the end product.

www.gmo-compass.org...

So by your standards, it would be apparently ok to say something is "GMO free" even if there is no way to determine that it is not. Good standards.

reply to post by JameSimon

Why should we not be aware that we are ingesting GMO foods?

Mandatory labeling won't necessarily tell you if you are. All it will really do is tell you that you "may" be ingesting GMO foods.

Voluntary labeling would tell you which foods do not have GMO materials.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

even better, dont put gmo into anything, there you go all those issues solved, no more gmo's ever again.

Good plan.

reply to post by Nicks87

Looks like the consensus is that most people want GMO foods to be labeled. Looks like another Phage Phail.

Looks like another person with a kneejerk reaction who didn't get the point.

reply to post by asciikewl

Sorry, but it seems you clearly don't understand the issue.

Sorry, but it seems that you don't understand the point.

in her case MSG, a label that says 'may contain MSG' on all food condemns her to have to grow her own.

So how does a label that says "may contain GMO material" help?

Please try to discard your immediate reaction and try to understand the point.
Mandatory labeling will not help the consumer because virtually everything will have a "GMO" label on it, whether or not it actually contains GMO material. If you read the OP, it is explained why this would happen.

A voluntary system of "non-GMO" labeling, similar to organic labeling, makes far more sense if the goal is providing an informed choice to the consumer.

Again, I'm all for mandatory labeling if voters choose to require it. But I think voters should think about if having virtually everything in the market having a "may contain GMO material" label is really going to help them make an informed decision. Rather than pushing for mandatory labeling, a well regulated "non-GMO" system would go much further to accomplishing that goal.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by asciikewl

 

Sorry, but it seems you clearly don't understand the issue.

Sorry, but it seems that you don't understand the point.

in her case MSG, a label that says 'may contain MSG' on all food condemns her to have to grow her own.

So how does a label that says "may contain GMO material" help?

Please try to discard your immediate reaction and try to understand the point.
Mandatory labeling will not help the consumer because virtually everything will have a "GMO" label on it, whether or not it actually contains GMO material. If you read the OP, it is explained why this would happen.

A voluntary system of "non-GMO" labeling, similar to organic labeling, makes far more sense if the goal is providing an informed choice to the consumer.

edit on 8/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

There's a difference between natural selective breeding vs. splicing genes in a lab so you can spray pure poison on a crop and it still keeps going.

I'd rather had mandatory GMO labeling that shows if the product contains anything that has to do with monsatan/dow/dupont (corn, soy, alfalafa, wheat) ....but I'll take the alternative....and no, not everything is scientist/laboratory dna(glyphosate proof or producing) gmo's.......that's the scary crap I always read the labels for and look out for.

SOrry Phage, but you lose w/ this one. The Consensus is in and 93%+ want mandatory gmo labeling......let us have it. Things wil work themselves out in the end anyway

reply to post by Phage


You're dead-set on this "may contain GMO" thing aren't you? What makes you think everything would be labeled "maybe" when "known" GMO foods would be required to be labeled as GMO?

You are just arguing against yourself here.

"GMO's should be labeled, no arguing that, but here's why they shouldn't and I'm going to argue it to death."

reply to post by dominicus

SOrry Phage, but you lose w/ this one. The Consensus is in and 93%+ want mandatory gmo labeling......let us have it.

If a majority of voters wants labeling they should have it. I've been saying that all along. So I'm not sure what you think I've "lost" there.

But trying to get people to understand that mandatory labeling ain't going to get them what they are asking for, an informed decision... you're right. I lost.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dominicus

 

SOrry Phage, but you lose w/ this one. The Consensus is in and 93%+ want mandatory gmo labeling......let us have it.

If a majority of voters wants labeling they should have it. I've been saying that all along. So I'm not sure what you think I've "lost" there.

But trying to get people to understand that mandatory labeling ain't going to get them what they are asking for, an informed decision... you're right. I lost.

edit on 8/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I already read the labels, and have taught others how to, and use apps that show which products contain what, linked to what company.....if you have an iphone or android....it's as easy as scanning a bar code with the camera on your phone....

it's really not hard to make an informed decision. Buy a product, read the label, go on the net, and read what each ingredient is, does, means......that's how I personally stopped drinking all soda/pop, no more msg (which made me bloated and sick), no more aspartame, no more sucralose, no more sodium benzoate.....

It's sooooooooooo easy, I've literally taught family member who are "not all there" how to do it, and their health has improved, less allergies, smaller waist lines, less fat....

Informed decisions are easy to make. If you have the "gmo" label, that make sit much easier. Then I can check to see if it's wheat/corn/soy/alfalfa. IF any of those are in it, I put it back ....if its something else that's gmo, I can go on the net and research.

So Effin Simple!!!!!!

reply to post by dominicus

If you have the "gmo" label, that make sit much easier. Then I can check to see if it's wheat/corn/soy/alfalfa.

Well, there is no GM wheat on the market so far. But you're still going to have to go to the net because there won't be many products without the label. You actually are an informed consumer and you seem to understand that.