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.

 

Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

I don't think you are aware of the complexity of the food production process.
From farm, to storage, to milling and the steps in between. It is not a simple process and in the US in involves billions of tons of material.

The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.

edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Oh but they do. They purchase the corn flour from somebody, who purchased the corn from somebody else. It's really not that difficult and Phage, I'm disappointed that you are in favor of the continued dumbing down of consumers. We all have a right to know what we are ingesting and if we want to pay for, we should have that right.




posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by StoutBroux
 


Oh but they do. They purchase the corn flour from somebody, who purchased the corn from somebody else.
Yes. And that somebody who milled the flour was milling flour from many different sources.

From someone who is in the business:

The tortilla factory won't know. But they don't care. The broker that supplied the raw materials will contact their supplier and on down the chain. Also, it might not get straight to the farmer, but will be narrowed down to a regional group of farmers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the tortilla factory has little choice but to label their product. Unless they are quite confident that a "regional group of farmers" is not using GMOs. But that's just for a single shipment. Does all their flour always come from the same place? I don't think that's the way it works.

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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Non GMO food is already labeled as 'Organic'..



Feds have disallowed separation of Organic & GMO, Neo. GM crops can be legally called "Organic" so long as they are organically grown.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


That's the thing, if products start getting GMO labeling, that will force more people to inform themselves on the issue, which means going on the net, doing research, finding out how corrupt/fascist Monsanto is, all the cover-up, paid for studies, the lack of 20+ years human studies, all the controversy surrounding this, and then they can be informed.

I remember when I was an uninformed consumer and started seeing "Dolphin Safe Tuna" on some cans, but not on others. That made me go, "Hmmmmmm, I like Dolphins, and I want them to be safe. Let me do some research on why these cans say this and what's really going on." From then on, I only bought Dolphin safe..... However the point is that the label stirred my curiosity and made me do my own research and become informed.

This is exactly what Mandatory GMO labeling will do. We will have a HUGE uptick of people researching, asking questions, becoming informed, and more will go organic and try to avoid these foods. This is why Monsatan/Dow/Dupont are investing Millions to try to keep this from going through. Because they know they are screwed once the masses in the U.S. become informed.

Just like all the EU, South American, and Asian countries that want no part of Monsatan/Dow/DuPont crops cause they've woken up as well.

On another note.....slightly off topic.....there's a guy in Wisconsin, on 3 acres....grows 2 million pounds of food a year!!! He's got a whole system in place with tanks growing tilapia, who's excrement flows through the hydroponic roots of crops giving them all the necessary nutrients, which filters the water, giving the tilapia pure water again..... (2 million pounds on 3 acres!!!!! That's ingenuity!!!!)
edit on 8-8-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


That's the thing, if products start getting GMO labeling, that will force more people to inform themselves on the issue, which means going on the net, doing research, finding out how corrupt/fascist Monsanto is, all the cover-up, paid for studies, the lack of 20+ years human studies, all the controversy surrounding this, and then they can be informed.
So it's really of an part of an agenda to get people to fight GMOs in general? It's not really about allowing people to make their own decision about whether or not they want to eat GMO products? People are being misled about the intent of mandatory labeling? It's actually a recruiting effort?


I remember when I was an uninformed consumer and started seeing "Dolphin Safe Tuna" on some cans, but not on others.
Yes. A good example of voluntary labeling. But did that label actually guarantee that no dolphins were killed?


This is why Monsatan/Dow/Dupont are investing Millions to try to keep this from going through. Because they know they are screwed once the masses in the U.S. become informed.
That agenda again. But, while labeling could have some influence on their bottom line, I really doubt that they would be "screwed". In any case, I'm all for letting the market decide. Just as long as they actually know what they are deciding upon.

Free choice? Or the choice of the anti-GMO crowd?

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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


Exactly. And those of us who do not want GMOs in the food supply at all can boycott those companies with trace amounts of gmos as well. Since GMOs are not more efficient, as found by mulitple non government and government studies, it is more cost effective to use non gmo seeds. Problem is you can't get them, cross contamination is forcing farmers hands into the pockets of the devil..



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
Looks like the consensus is that most people want GMO foods to be labeled.

Looks like another Phage Phail.


i...see what you did, there...



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by inalienabletruth
 


it is more cost effective to use non gmo seeds. Problem is you can't get them,
Silly statement. Of course you can. You can even get them from Monsanto.

On Thursday Monsanto said it could now focus on increasing sales of its non-GMO seed and other farm inputs, which account for more than 98 percent of its $1.72 billion annual turnover in Europe.

www.reuters.com...

See, farmers have a choice to purchase GM or non-GM seeds. They can buy their seed from different companies and they can buy the type of seed they want. Maybe there actually is a good reason for them to decide which seed they prefer to use.

“Very simply, I choose my seed based upon the best variety for my conditions that we farm. I choose to use GM seed because it works for me, not because I don’t have other choices”

jldphotographblog.com...

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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
it cannot be proven that a product is free of GMO material. Testing methods are insufficient to determine that.


that is absolutely untrue.

the corn/soy/wtfever isn't willed into existence from nowhere, by magical unicorns....it's grown by farmers...and i imagine many farmers contribute to a larger company, who then sells the stuff to the company that makes the final products.....well you know, the fine denizens of ATS are not the only beings on the planet capable of using, and understanding language....

so the larger company that the farmers all give their crops to, can investigate, to ensure their suppliers (farmers) aren't selling them GM crops...then, once they've established that they have no GM intake, they can tell their customer that none of the crops are GMO, and then the company making the final product can slap a label on there stating (truthfully) that it's GM-free......

seriously, this is NOT complicated...why would you intentionally be dishonest about it?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



So it's really of an part of an agenda to get people to fight GMOs in general? It's not really about allowing people to make their own decision about whether or not they want to eat GMO products? People are being misled about the intent of mandatory labeling? It's a recruiting effort?

GMO's are bad for your health!!! That's the point. Go look at the mediteranean areas where they have the world's lowest cancer rates, and some of the Japanese provinces where they have the longest life spans, and you will see ZERO GMO's!!!!! They've been there for thousands of years eating, living, and existing just fine!!!!!

Then look at U.S. Highest Cancer rates in the world!!!! Ranking 33 by W.H.O. as far as Lifespans, Extremely high diabeetus, Autism, Heart Disease rates......there's a definitive correlation there to diet!!!!

People are fighting GMO cause they are bad, and it will eventually be proven in the U.S. as well (where you can't even find a non-biased study that's not paid for by Monsanto/EPA/FDA Bribery and Tom Foolery)

The unbiased studies will come out of Japan/China/Korea/South America/India where Monsanto has not yet Corrupted their Governments!!!!!


Yes. A good example of voluntary labeling. But did that label actually guarantee that no dolphins were killed?

It later came out, that all the tuna companies were adding that label even though Dolphins were still getting hurt. Still, it infromed me of what was going on when I didn't know. Now I eat a lot less Tuna because I no longer know which one really is Dolphin Safe or not. Besides the high mercury rates from the pollution in the Oceans, it's already recommended not to eat more than once a week. Plus, a Dolphin Safe Tuna Co now has the tech to put Cameras on all their fishing vessels and stream live ...which can prove they are legit.....

Same w/ Non-GMO companies....can show a list of suppliers, logistics maps, blueprints, lab tests to make sure there is no contamination and list those tests monthly......The Consumers are in control and demand more info!!!


That agenda again. But, while labeling could have some influence on their bottom line, I really doubt that they would be "screwed". In any case, I'm all for letting the market decide. Just as long as they actually know what they are deciding upon.

Monsanto is immoral, corrupt, unethical, and part of a Corporate Fascist problem. They need to be shut down regardless as they are basically a Monopoly with employee's working in the Gov, FDA, EPA and have the freedom to pass whatever laws they want!!!! That's a HUGE NO NO in a Constitutional Republic!!!!

Most hated Company there is, and they are hiring Internet Reputation Companies to try and fix their rep on forums, comments at the bottom of articles, damage control, and so forth.....

Patenting Plants???? Next logical step is to patent Air and start charging royalties for each breath. Patent water and charge for that. Patent Human bodies and charge for every day of Life....see where this is going??? Pure Insanity!!!!


Free choice? Or the choice of the anti-GMO crowd?

The Majority is Anti-GMO. If mandatory GMO labeling happens, then Free Choice still remains. The ANti-GMO crowd can avoid, while folks like yourself can look for the GMO labels and buy them all up......

Both sides win.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
When you see the processed rubbish that is touted as "food" in the shops and is bought by the masses I think that GMO is the least of their worries. GMO is a minority interest which is why I believe that ultimately companies like Monsanto will get their way, unfortunately.

For me though I avoid processed and GMO food and would like to see labelling just because I like to know what Im eating and if that means extra cost then so be it
edit on 8-8-2013 by johnrobca because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


the corn/soy/wtfever isn't willed into existence from nowhere, by magical unicorns....it's grown by farmers...and i imagine many farmers contribute to a larger company, who then sells the stuff to the company that makes the final products.....well you know, the fine denizens of ATS are not the only beings on the planet capable of using, and understanding language....


Unbelievable.
Your confirmation bias doesn't let you even recognize an argument that supports your position. That is exactly the point of what the FDA says.

If all you do is try to test for GM materials it won't work. The only way to do it is by tracing the supply chain to find out if GMOs are involved. That is exactly the point that the FDA is making. That is exactly the point. You cannot prove that a product does not have GM materials in it. You can prove that is GMOs are not used in the production process and that is what voluntary labeling is all about.


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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


and your scenario, where everything is labeled "may contain" whether it does, or not, is patently absurd...it assumes that every person on the planet earth is completely brain dead, and thus, incapable of doing the research necessary to establish supply chains, free of GMOs.....

it assumes that every company would rather take the suicidal course of shotgun labeling everything as GM, rather than do some research...

it's idiotic, and demonstrates a lack of imagination, and logic on your part...

i mean...this strange tale you're spinning here....it's...well, i don't know what it is...i'm starting to feel like the only appropriate reply is "cool story, bro"



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Here's a thought, why don't we cut the . of the gmo monster right now, ban production, burn what exists and in 50-100 years maybe mother nature will have worked those funky foods that have been crossbred (intentionally or not) free of non-natural genetic sequences.

Btw, Phage is gone and replaced with a corporate and/or government disinfo agent...just kidding Phage. You and I don't always agree, but you always make threads for thinkers.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Have you considered tipping Monsanto off how 'well' your argument is recieved by the members here. Because they're still stuck acting like a delinquent teenager, insisting their stuff is save and therefore, labeling would be unfair. Changing the tactic to your approach might actually work a lot better in the future.


We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks. Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.

gmo's nein danke


Here in Germany, and in the EU in general, GMO's are becoming more and more a non-issue, and a huge part of it is due to the fact that mandatory labeling is required. It's funny you're arguing Monsanto decided to stop its approval and lobbying efforts because of political pressure, well more like pressure from the public.

The 'free market' that you cherish so much in the US, worked exactly as intended. Monsanto & Co are experts in political pressure (not so good with the public), they've tried everything short of toppling a european government, even bribing officials didn't fly this time, and they still had to give it up.

I understand that the sitiuation in the States is quite different, Biotech companies are practically in control of key portions of agriculture, so the point has some merit that mandatory labeling would basically affect the entire food market. Labeling all GMO-foods could help to change that.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


settle down, man....don't blow a gasket..

if nobody is supplying GM anymore, then nobody is processing GM anymore...no contamination.....or hell, why not plants that process GM crops, and ones that do not?...no contamination....

and the FDA is corrupt, and full of s**t anyway....it's their fault GMO's were allowed into the food supply in the first place....

again i ask you, and for the love of all that is is good, please answer it this time.....

"If there's nothing wrong with GM food, and it's perfectly safe, why do people care if it's in their food?"



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


and your scenario, where everything is labeled "may contain" whether it does, or not, is patently absurd
Is it? Do you think everything that says "may contain peanuts", contains peanuts?



it assumes that every person on the planet earth is completely brain dead, and thus, incapable of doing the research necessary to establish supply chains, free of GMOs.
I don't see how that follows and it is not my point. My point is that is that it is not worth the risk that there could be an error in that chain. Mandatory labeling forces the manufacturer to accept that risk. That's why you see labels that say "may contain peanuts".



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


settle down, man....don't blow a gasket..
I don't seem to be the one who is getting agitated here.


"If there's nothing wrong with GM food, and it's perfectly safe, why do people care if it's in their food?"
I don't know why. Probably because they think it's not perfectly safe.

I don't care about it myself.

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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Because they're still stuck acting like a delinquent teenager, insisting their stuff is save and therefore, labeling would be unfair.

Really? Can you point out where I have said either of those things, much less insisted upon them?

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



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Is it? Do you think everything that says "may contain peanuts", contains peanuts?


no, of course not, but it may have been processed in a plant that also processes peanuts, or products that contain peanuts, so there is a risk of contamination, hence the label, because peanut allergies kill...like within minutes....

the GMO thing is not AS serious....you can absorb quite a lot of that crap, before it has any negative impact on your health...



I don't see how that follows and it is not my point. My point is that is that it is not worth the risk that there could be an error in that chain. Mandatory labeling forces the manufacturer to accept that risk. That's why you see labels that say "may contain peanuts".


and then the manufacturer can pass the hurt on to the supplier....there are ways to attain certainty....it may be a little harder to do than the current system, and it may require a little more work, but whatever, it's their goddamn job....



Originally posted by Phage
I don't know why. Probably because they think it's not perfectly safe.

I don't care about it myself.


ok, and just because you don't care about it, doesn't mean that nobody cares about it...

and i can't imagine WHY people would believe it's not perfectly safe....could it possibly be to do with the lack of long-term studies? or maybe the shoddy way in which it was approved for human consumption? or maybe the lack of unbiased studies? naah....that couldn't be it...




top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join