Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
If tptb had their way they'd want us to eat our own sheat for dinner.




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I would say that how can consumers make informed decisions if they aren't informed? And laws and regulations can be written/made to allow for minute traces of GMO material to be in a product. Besides providing this protective information, however, the other benefit such laws/rule will provide is the incentive to producers to provide non-GMO products if the market will bear it. Isn't that what capitalism is about?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
it simply could be a part of the label that said ....GMO-1...GMO-2...GMO-3...etc. with further info online, which would explain the differences....use the KISS method with labels....keep it simple stupid.
the cost would be practically pennies a unit
edit on 7-8-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Regardless of whether there are potential health risks or not attached to use of products which may contain GMOs, the issue is a political hot potato, with heated arguments from proponents for and against. If corporations like Mosanto and Nabisco (owned by Phillip Morris) refuse to label foods which have been altered, they are treating consumers with contempt, stating they know what's best, and the consumer's voice is not worth listening to.

From the perspective of someone who is unsure of whether GMOs have the potential for adverse health effects or not, I feel that without doing a fair bit of research I'm unlikely to become any wiser if I just listen to the arguments (and obfuscation) of both sides. There seems to be a lot of noise in the signal, and for someone unclear on the science, there is plenty of opportunity to play upon that lack of understanding.

Looking back at how certain substances were portrayed in the 20th century, does not give me great confidence in the honesty of corporations and government. Thalidomide was advertised as a 'wonder drug' with a seeming lack of awareness of the potential horrors that would eventuate. By 1924, Asbestosis was recognised as a disease caused by exposure to asbestos, yet mining was unabated (and asbestos mining corporations to this day go to court, fighting against paying compensation to those suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma). For how long tobacco companies were aware of the detrimental effects of cigarettes, yet actively covered this fact up, is a disgusting indictment of corporate responsibility.

Are we completely aware of the long term effects of mobile phones and exposure to the types of radiation these devices emit? There are conflicting reports, and looking at which body funds which study can be damning. As for GMOs, I do not know what potential health risks there are, but can it be stated with confidence that there are none?. In light of all the other things we were told were safe (nuclear power plants, particularly ones located on major fault lines prone to potential earthquakes and tsunamis seems an exercise in complete stupidity), does it not seem wise to allow those who wish to be aware of what is in their food the opportunity to do so?

I am vegetarian and have been so my entire life. I seldom had the common ailments my peers suffered regularly. As an adult I am in good health with no excess weight, cholesterol, salt, as well as being quite fit. I consider this to be due to certain lifestyle choices including being aware of what I put into my body. I buy and use free range eggs for a number of reasons, and even if there's no health benefits, do I not have the right as a consumer to choose the eggs (and the conditions under which the chickens live) I wish, if the market permits those choices? I grow a small amount of fruit and vegetables in my city garden and I believe there are health benefits to doing so (including the not inconsequential act of gardening itself). I do not preach or moralise about my own choices, nor publicly chastise those who choose to live in a fashion I may find contrary to my own beliefs.

I do believe that we all should have the ability to know what goes into our food, and I believe that multinational corporations should adhere to a labelling regime regardless of the expense. If they have the ability and financial wherewithal to alter the genetic makeup of our foods, the onus should fall on them to keep the consumer informed. Perhaps science says that GMOs are perfectly safe (and perhaps not); this does not mean that valid reasons for consumer awareness do not exist.

The problem I have with those who suggest the current scientific methodologies are adequate is that perhaps they're adequate in light of what we know now, but who knows what combination of circumstances have not been accounted for. For example, perhaps GMOs are perfectly safe, unless the person consuming them wears a certain type of nail polish, lives underneath a mobile phone tower and cooks using a microwave while smoking.

For those who have listened to what has been called safe in the past, especially from corporations and/or the government, does not a degree of caution make sense? Is the technology still in its infant stages, or can we confidently state there are no health risks (like some of the examples of 'safe' products discussed earlier)? Perhaps labelling is the 'least' that can be done, to at least allow those concerned the option to attempt to avoid these foodstuffs where possible.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
An issue that I'm mentioned multiple times now is the ATS user reaction of placing ALL of the different multitude of GMO technologies all into the one basket and treating them as if they're all the same.
But they're not.

As a simple example, many people have mentioned in many threads, a problem they have with the idea of consuming the Bt toxin used with some GMO crops. But only a small percentage of GMO foods use this, and the labelling of GMO food as "GMO" *will not tell you* whether it has the Bt toxin you fear, or not.

Its as stupid as putting a label of food that says "contains flavors", or "added sweetener", or "food coloring added", without going any further and saying exactly what type it is.

And of course if, as may be the case in the future, a real genuine DEADLY KILLER problem arises with GMO technology where one particular specific type of marker gene gets mutated, you also have no way of knowing which food contains that one particular faulty technology, because they are all labelled exactly the same.

IMHO, a GMO label is completely useless and meaninglessly dumb idea without the added information regarding its type, so it should be like food additives.
eg: "GMO (233, 12, 544, 119K, 44)"



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's no different than Kosher certification. I'm not Jewish, but I have to pay the added cost of the "circle U" on pretty much EVERY food product I buy.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Gosh.
You mean that a labeling requirement might result in....more...products with GMO materials?
Don't you find that disturbing?



That would be the logical result. If I am a food producer making, let's say, vegetable soup, I would have a choice of doing a complete genome sequence on every batch of corn from every producer, or simply using what I know to be GMO and adding 1 line to an already existing label. The cost of full genome sequencing has fallen but our lab still gets $5,000.00 per sequence. My competing soup processor down the street says he can add a line to a label for .0001 cent per can to say every can has GMO. Do I follow his lead or raise my price of vegetable soup by $10.00/can to cover genome sequencing costs? You bet your Roundup expressed gene I use GMO and stay competitive. No one is going to buy $10.00 vegetable soup. Bacon and bean, maybe, but not vegetable. Wait, I'm not sure anyone has done a full genome sequence on a pig yet, so there would be no control with which to compare. Oh, no! $100.00 bacon! And think of the marketing fun with breakfast cereals: Mice Crispies; Goateos; Captain Crunchberry Hen Flakes.; Flea-ties, the breakfast of (very tiny) champions; Nabisco Shredded Meat....



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Why the hell are you defending GMO's anyway Phage?

What is wrong with you these days, your threads really don't make sense anymore.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Phage
 


It's no different than Kosher certification. I'm not Jewish, but I have to pay the added cost of the "circle U" on pretty much EVERY food product I buy.
strange that monosanto is a jewish owned firm yet their religion bans it and monasanto will not allow it in their canteens
strange but true



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator
Why the hell are you defending GMO's anyway Phage?

What is wrong with you these days, your threads really don't make sense anymore.
phage has gone to the dark side but shhh it's a secret



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The vote is coming up and it's already known that the companies are going to go full force to sway people to vote against labelling.

It's easy, cross contamination was said to 'not be possible', so minute traces are byproducts of a lie used to propagate the profit margin for shareholders to ensure that the biotech company CEO can get his big check.

I'm not pushing against GMOs for myself; hell, I smoke, drink, and would prob do whatever you put in front of me... I'm doing it because it's wrong, and I fear for the safety of the kids I see every day, and the families I see with babies in surgery for 'stomach anomalies', and the 3rd world farmers killing themselves by suddenly going into massive debt because they were lied to, and it is just pure evil.

I hate working for the tech corporation that I am currently 'in fear of losing my job' at (fear fear fear, wheee). I want to leave (and may be sooner rather than later).

But the people they are going to hire to push against labelling...that's even beyond where I work. We sell what we produce to the govt, so I feel like I'm the Devil's tailor. But being hired to attempt to sway the public to vote against genetic mutations, that have no checks and balances for safety, is directly working for the Devil.

These creations are made using even more dangerous practices than that of pharmaceuticals, yet the only safety regulations that they have to adhere to are "does it look like a tomato, and have similar nutritional values?". The pharma corps have to spend years ensuring that their products are safe, yet adding a bacterial toxin to the DNA of a vegetable does not?!?!?

We humans think we are so smart, putting on a show with our latest 'thought of the day'. We are only 200 years past the point of drilling holes in heads to release the demons. We are only 400 years away from the Earth being the center of the Universe. We know nothing, and to create life, and allow our children to consume it, with no knowledge to the parents... is just wrong.

It took 40 years, FORTY YEARS, for us to learn that, feeding cows to cows is a bad idea. Why? Because the cows body did not know what to do with it, the DNA was not something that it was designed to eat. And the outcome? A non-DNA, non-RNA brain eating spongiform we all love to call Mad Cow. We know nothing about DNA, but we like to pretend we do because we have more information that we 'used to'.

Anyone who is working for, or contracted by, the big Bio-tech companies to push against labelling:
You are better than this... and don't have to subscribe to the fear of not being able to hold down a job... just leave the demon's lair and let them fall, as they should.

I'm writing this up in a meeting at work that I don't care about because this place sucks, so I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors that may have come from trying to rant without my face turning red in a conference room :-D



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Originally posted by Phage
The factory which makes the tortillas doesn't know where the corn came from.

Well, they should know... else the owner of that factory would be in big trouble if his product was contaminated by anything really, not even necessarily GMOs.


Originally posted by Phage
[...] the requirement to keep the two separate (GMO vs. non) in transport, storage, and milling is sure to add expense. And legal risk.

Yes, and the same goes for lots of stuff in the food logistics sector (at least where I live).
Those risks and costs are for the producers to calculate.
If their products are no longer economically profitable due to GMOs in their foodchain... they should not sell them obviously.


Originally posted by Phage
Isn't the point that some people think GMOs are poison?

No. The same goes for pork or cow meat due to religious reasons for example.
edit on 7-8-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by geobro

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Phage
 


It's no different than Kosher certification. I'm not Jewish, but I have to pay the added cost of the "circle U" on pretty much EVERY food product I buy.
strange that monosanto is a jewish owned firm yet their religion bans it and monasanto will not allow it in their canteens
strange but true


I wrote the Orthodox Union a couple months ago asking them how they can certify something as Kosher if it contains GMOs. Some guy answered me... he was pretty condesending and we went back and forth for a few days. I got nowhere with him and just quit responding.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Why in the world would you not want to have responsible science with your own food you eat?
edit on 7-8-2013 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think Phage had a concussion or stroke recently.

His quality in reasoning seems to indicate perhaps a 10-20 point loss in IQ.

Either that, or he's trolling around ATS these days because he just doesn't have much of a life.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 
i picked that up on a website recently i think it was jeff rense .com



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I dont really care who labels what....but things should be labeled. Heres the thing...the market can regulate itself if people show enough interest in something. Look at what happened with the gluten free craze....and the bpa free craze. Those are markets that were created either by the companies that had their finger to the pulse of the consumers...or a demand of the consumers for such products....or BOTH. How difficult is it for companies that want to CREATE a new market based on non-gmo labeling to attract the customer base that is interested in such products? In a way i hate to admit it but im kinda with Phage on this.....asking for MORE government involvement and regulation really isnt what im interested in.

By the way the ant or non gmo movement is growing...slowly...but steadily...and i can almost guarantee it wont be long before the big boys in food production will bend to the will of the consumer, whimsical as it may be, and start either labeling on their own, or reducing the use of gmo products to get people to continue buying.

Also....people need to not be so darn lazy. If you dont want to eat gmo its pretty easy to find out which products contain them....first just do a cursory google search on which products contain gmo....there are tons of websites that will tell you at a glance how many of our staple crops are gmo (soy, wheat, rice, corn....a couple of those are over 90 percent gmo at this point). Also theres the non gmo shopping guide to make it even easier!!!


www.nongmoshoppingguide.com...


If you care about it, share it, talk it, walk it, live it....it wont be long before the groundswell of public opinion forces the market into the direction people want it to go.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The labeling of GMO products is a topic of great concern. The arguments on both sides are reasonable (depending, of course, on your point of view).

The consumer has a right to know what they are eating. Absolutely! No way to argue that.
The expense will have to be borne by the consumer and not everyone cares about GMO. Oh, yeah. That makes sense too.

Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? Let's say that it does become a legal requirement that any food product which contains, or may contain GMO is required to put that information on the label in the interest of informed consumerism.

How would such a requirement be enforced? Well, if a certain level of GMO material is found in a product and that product does not carry the notification there would be hell to pay.

Now let's go back to the first argument against labeling, the expense. In order to be certain that there were no GMO materials or the materials did not exceed a certain threshold various new measures would have to be implemented in the transportation, storage, and processing of the raw materials. All of these measures would add expense and as we know, added expense is always passed on to the consumer. That's fine, let's assume that everyone is willing to accept that additional expense. What happens if somewhere in that complex chain, something goes wrong and a batch of GMO material gets mixed in with a batch of non-GMO material? Somebody is going to get fined and/or sued.

My question is this. With the added expense and legal risk involved, isn't the simplest solution for the producer to simply put the "May contain GMO" label on everything? It seems that is the only way to avoid legal risk (and increased costs).

So how does this result in a better informed consumer?


It doesn't. Everyone already knows every single f****ing product contains something that's GMO. Everything.

If we labeled everything as GMO then there's a greater chance that alot of people wouldn't buy certain products. Food companies don't want to put the label on for the same reason cigarette companies didn't want the surgeon general warnings on packs of cigs. It's a deterrant. It's like the opposite of advertising. You're asking a company to put something that will make the buyer turn away in disgust on their product.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
If tptb had their way they'd want us to eat our own sheat for dinner.


Let's say hypothetically this was true and i'm not going to argue that it's not. I'm sure with simple research we can figure out why this would be! Game?
edit on 7-8-2013 by 9ArchaBallet9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Making a thread about how "labeling GMO is a dumb idea", is a dumb idea....

the second i saw the thread title, i KNEW you HAD to be the author....

honestly, why do you care if there's labels? why do you care if people dislike them? it's your opinion that there's nothing wrong with GMO, but i don't believe you've provided any evidence to back that belief...

if you believe GMO is fine, then go ahead and eat up, and stop trying to convince other people that your opinion is correct, and the only truth on the subject...






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join