Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by Phage


I fail to see the logic in this. Are you saying that if GMO products are required to be labeled, only then will non-GMO products have a risk of having GMO in them?

Why risk labeling non-GMO as non-GMO if there is a risk of having GMO in them? Why does the risk all of a sudden change when GMO's are the ones required to be labeled?

I'm baffled by the lack of logic on display in this thread. It seems people are letting their jealousy of Phage's stars cloud their judgment.

When this whole GMO debate first started, non-GMO dairy farmers were fighting tooth and nail for the right to label their milk as coming from cows that weren't genetically altered. Well they lost that fight to Monsanto's army of lobbyists and we've been forced to do the investigating ourselves ever since.

Phage is right. Labeling products as containing GMOs won't help at all. It makes much more sense to allow farmers that don't use GMOs to label their products as such. This will give them the competitive edge they deserve and were fighting for in the first place.

reply to post by GrimReaper86

Then perhaps I am ignorant of some unknown fact because I hardly see the hardship, food is tracked everywhere it goes pretty much. Why is it so hard for a company to know whether or not the products they are selling contain GMO's?

I wasn't sure about that myself but just by having a general idea of the scale we are talking about (billions of tons of material) I'm not sure how closely it really can be tracked

But Bobaganoosh is in the business and this is what he said about it:

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...

It is my contention that the tortilla factory better know and better care. Now, he did clarify a bit but it still doesn't seem that the tortilla factory can be absolutely sure that their product does not contain GMOs so to be safe they would more or less be forced to label their product. Now, if they are willing to take on both the risk and the additional cost (if there are any), fine. In that case the idea might work for that company if they feel it that their market would sustain it. But when we start getting to larger scale operations I'm pretty sure that every box of corn flakes is going to say "may contain GMO materials".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why risk labeling non-GMO as non-GMO if there is a risk of having GMO in them? Why does the risk all of a sudden change when GMO's are the ones required to be labeled?

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between mandatory and voluntary.
If someone wants to accept the risk of saying their product has no GMO material, fine.
If someone is forced to accept the risk of saying their product has no GMO (by not labeling) it. Not so fine. And to avoid that risk they will label it.

reply to post by Phage


As long as something get's labeled so that the public can have a better idea of how to buy non GMO food that's really all that concerns me about the topic. I'm not opposed to companies using strict non GMO policies labeling their food instead of companies that aren't really sure labeling everything. I really just want to be informed either way and I would hope that others would feel the same. I don't particularly care how it's done. I'm inclined to agree with you if they don't really know what their suppliers are giving them.

Either way it sounds like it really only effects the business end of the idea. The public won't care how things are labeled as long as the labels have meaning behind them and can be used to help identify the products they want to buy. So from a consumer stand point I hardly see how either label really matters. If my goal as a consumer is to buy products that don't have GMO's in them I'm going to buy those products I can identify as such whether I identify the product by a "No GMOs" label or I identify it by a lack of "May Contain GMO's" label.

reply to post by Phage


So what does that accomplish exactly? If the risk of GMO is inherent, as you imply, why would farmers take the risk of labeling it non-GMO if that's not exactly guaranteed?

reply to post by GrimReaper86

Either way it sounds like it really only effects the business end of the idea. The public won't care how things are labeled as long as the labels have meaning behind them and can be used to help identify the products they want to buy.

That's just it. In order to avoid having it affect their business (by increasing liability and costs). The manufacturers will just say "Ah, the hell with it. Label it." Whether or not their product contains GMOs or not. So now all the concerned customer sees is "may contain GMO".

You are apparently a concerned customer. Are you not aware that GMOs are pervasive in prepared foods? I think you are going to have to search very hard to find a box without a GMO label on it. How does it help make a decision if all you see are labels that say "may contain GMO materials"?

I don't know, it's possible that some manufacturers have enough confidence in their ability to track their supply chain to be confident that there are no mistakes. Could be. Maybe they buy from local sources. That's great! But rather than filling shelves with boxes which say "may contain GMO material". It just makes more sense for there to be a voluntary system by which these guys can market their products.

It is also true that these guys are not really competing with the big boys anyway. They don't have the capacity to do so. Just like organic farming doesn't really affect the non-organic market. So as far as "bringing down" GMOs...not so much.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If the risk of GMO is inherent, as you imply

Oh geez.
I am talking about legal risk. Legal liability. Not any risk in GMOs themselves. You know, getting fined and/or sued because they didn't label the package and it turned out that some GMO material had gotten into the product.

why would farmers take the risk of labeling it non-GMO if that's not exactly guaranteed?

They wouldn't. Isn't the farmers who would be doing most of the labeling but that's the point. Not unless they were very, very confident about it. In which case, great! The can proudly market their non-GMO product to people who are looking for non-GMO products.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

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...

The safety of GMOs has nothing to do with the question.
You, and apparently most of the other contributors to the thread have entirely missed the point.

Mandatory labeling will not tell you which foods have GMO materials. It will tell you that most foods might have GMO materials.

wrong, the safety is at the very HEART of the question....if there was no safety concern, why would there be a need, or a desire for labeling?

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....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Good thread and I promise to behave myself tonight:-)

Too bad nothing you said has anything to do with the topic.

You call it a Dumb Idea to label GMO's and I say it's Foolish not to label food products, which they have been doing for years.

We for one want to know what we are consuming, and secondly since when did adding ingredients to a products label cost consumers $400.00 bucks a year for one item listed on the package?

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Daedalus

wrong, the safety is at the very HEART of the question

No. The heart of the question is the consumers' right to know what they are eating.
This is not about food safety. This is not about warning labels.
This is about telling consumers that they food they are buying may or may not contain GMO materials.Food safety is not part of the discussion because GMOs are legal and approved foodstuffs.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Quoop

 

Ok. Let's look at that.
What do those peanut warnings say?
"May contain or had contact with peanuts". That doesn't really tell you much, does it?

Once again, for those who seem to have missed the point. The only thing that requiring GMO labels is likely to accomplish is labeling of every product which contains soy or corn. This is because there is no reason for a manufacture to take the risk that their product might have GMO materials in it.

Just like with peanuts, the manufacturers will pretty much have to label everything because of the liability if they do not. It doesn't matter if GMO materials are there or not, the label will be applied to the product.

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

or, you know, companies could NOT be so goddamn lazy, look into where their ingredients are coming from, and be able to say for a fact whether or not their product contains a GMO, or GMO derivative....

the warnings about nuts are because some people are alergic to them, so they put a warning that the product was processed in a facility that also processes nuts....so people know "gee, i'm alergic to nuts" then they decide whether or not they wish to risk a potentially life-ending alergic reaction....

in other words, if something is known to have a harmful thing in it, it should be clearly marked as such..

reply to post by Daedalus

in other words, if something is known to have a harmful thing in it, it should be clearly marked as such..

Yes. What's your point?

This is not about warning people. This is about telling people if a product has GMOs in it. There is no "Warning: GMOs are may be hazardous" requirement being sought. Just "This product may contain GMO".

Something like:
Ingredients: Corn. (may contain GMO materials)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

wrong, the safety is at the very HEART of the question

No. The heart of the question is the consumers' right to know what they are eating.
This is not about food safety. This is not about warning labels.
This is about telling consumers that they food they are buying may or may not contain GMO materials.Food safety is not part of the discussion because GMOs are legal and approved foodstuffs.

and why would the consumer CARE if there is GM in their food if there's nothing wrong with it?

they're legal and approved foodstuffs because the FDA doesn't do it's job....

you can't escape the safety aspect...it IS the reason this entire debate exists...you cannot refute this.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

in other words, if something is known to have a harmful thing in it, it should be clearly marked as such..

Yes. What's your point?

This is not about warning people. This is about telling people if a product has GMOs in it. There is no "Warning: GMOs are may be hazardous" requirement being sought. Just "This product may contain GMO".

Something like:
Ingredients: Corn. (may contain GMO materials)

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

and as i've asked...if it wasn't potentially harmful, why would John Q. Public give a toss if it was in his food?

reply to post by Daedalus

and why would the consumer CARE if there is GM in their food if there's nothing wrong with it?

I don't know. I don't really care myself. Why do some people care about eating only organic and others don't?

Maybe it has something to do with misinformation and distortion. You can read this interesting study about attitudes toward GMOs:

Opposition to GMOs stems from the many potential risks highlighted by various groups and a number of media, and from a stigmatisation of their possible advantages. By presenting themselves as defenders of consumers' interests and health, the opposition rallied a substantial proportion of the Western public who saw no advantages in GMOs.

For a certain part of people, GMOs thus seem to have become a symbol for many negative aspects of global economic development when in fact they are by no means the only forms or embodiment of that development. In this respect they differ from many other innovations that also strongly represent general economic development but the advantages of which are judged more clearly apparent by those who have access to them, and which are therefore the focus of little opposition. Indeed GMOs are accused of having negative characteristics, but quite many other products and services have similar features.

www.ejbiotechnology.info...

reply to post by Phage


The legal risk is what I was talking about.

So basically you just want things to stay the way they are now? Farmers can already voluntarily label their food as non-GMO.

If GMO labeling is mandatory, there would have to be some sort of tracking to verify whether it is GMO or not. They already implement this tracking, so all they would have to do is emphasize whether it is from a GMO crop or not.

Once it is on the shelves with or without a GMO label, I would think it would be hard to prove whether it does or doesn't have GMO because, as you said, testing methods aren't exactly accurate. What would the lawsuit be based on other than inaccurate data?

If the farmers keep track on GMO and non-GMO crops, there is absolutely no reason to be against labeling.

Originally posted by Bone75
Phage is right. Labeling products as containing GMOs won't help at all. It makes much more sense to allow farmers that don't use GMOs to label their products as such. This will give them the competitive edge they deserve and were fighting for in the first place.

So the costs in the problem should be payed out by the people with real food, while the people serving illegitimate "food" have no extra expense, take no hit, and have the cheaper product?

You're quite the visionary.

reply to post by Phage


Good point. Plus, technically, some apple species are "genetically modified organism", since they're genetic cross-breeds. S&F