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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



If they label it as "maybe" and are being truthful about not being sure, they would have no fine to pay because they aren't exactly lying about it.
And how do they go about proving that they weren't sure? Oh I see, they are truthful. They don't have to prove it. Got it.


Only the "KNOWN" GMO food is allowed to be labeled as GMO, those who are not sure are required to label it as "maybe",
How does that work? How do you prove that someone who says they are sure really wasn't sure? Some of their stuff they know about some they don't. How do you deal with that? More oversight, more regulation?

Such a law is unworkable, unenforceable. That's probably why the EU doesn't do it that way.
edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus
 


i'm fairly certain the farmer knows if he/she planted GM crops, or not...
Yes. They ask for them by name.

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


right, so then that would mean that the company that would produce your hypothetical tortilla could, in fact, ask the farmer, who is the supplier of their raw materials, whether or not they were using GM crops...

it would also mean that if the answer is yes, then they could seek an alternate source, who does not use GM crops, thus ensuring that their product is GMO-free, and they could then label it as being GMO-free, or be exempt from having to put a GMO warning on it.

isn't it amazing how that works?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
We have inalienable rights, one of which is to know if we are eating unnatural food that could be toxic to some of us. I eat a high percentage of food made from scratch. I buy a quarter of grassfed organic beef a year, and buy a high percentage of local food, asking questions from the farmers that produce them most times. My thinking has improved immensely since I started to increase the percentage of more natural foods I eat, I don't feel so dopey all the time.

I think people have the right to know if they have gmo food. I think that the Bt gene is not appropriate incorporated into the food. If it is than all I ask is to list it on the product. I think I should have the right to know.

It will cost no more than a few pennies on a product to do this. I try to look if GMO is in foods but cannot tell the good from the bad, so I just don't buy those products. I buy little to no soy products and little to no corn products anymore, I am sure that the millions like me who do this are hurting the agricultural industry associated with corn and soy products. It is not a few people it is millions that try to avoid this GMO. I think the soy and Corn producers are not very smart for listening to monsanto, look at the difference in what they could get for their product if it was organic and non GMO, millions would pay the extra five cents an ear for corn, three cents of which could go to the farmer. I know small farmers have a hard time making it go, they should go natural and sell at farmers markets.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


right, so then that would mean that the company that would produce your hypothetical tortilla could, in fact, ask the farmer, who is the supplier of their raw materials, whether or not they were using GM crops...
Yes. Absolutely. If they are buying direct from the farmer. I mentioned that earlier.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
 


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.

But it's not really that simple in most cases. That's why it's referred to as a supply chain. It has more than one link. As pointed out by someone who is in the business:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



and they could then label it as being GMO-free,
Yes, they could. I'm all for that. But that covers a very small part of the market. The vast majority of products are going to have the GMO label on them. And most of them will still have GMOs in them but you really don't know if they do or not.

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



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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?


How does "May contain nuts" or "manufactured in a plant which also produces products containing tree nuts" not serve the exact same purpose, though? It is pretty damn simple, Phage, if you see GMO as being potentially destructive to your health (akin to the way people with bad nut allergies view nuts), you want to avoid those products at all costs. Yes, there are costs associated and yes, people with really bad allergies can't even enjoy a Hershey's bar but... *shrugs* that's the price of doing business as far as I'm concerned.

The real question here is how was it even remotely fair or legal for Monsanto paid politicians to effectively block any effort made to allow truly non-GMO organics to have a "DOES NOT CONTAIN GMO" label on their products similar to the "Not from cows treated with RBST" label on prganic dairy goods? Seems like THAT cost and liability was acceptable to both natural producers and consumers... yet the efforts were blocked. Maybe there were fears that these products, even with a higher cost, would sell in large enough quantities to hurt the agribusiness conglomerates and their mutants foods? Hmmm....



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, as I stated before, I'm not opposed to labeling strictly non GMO food as "Contains No GMOs" or something to that effect, but I disagree with you when it comes to "taking down" GMO's. Granted I don't think it could happen over night even with labeling. 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. As more people buy such products, less will buy food containing GMO's until eventually they either go out of business or change their business model.

The same is somewhat true with MSG today, granted their are still MSG containing products, but likely not as many as their used to be and they are all labeled either way.

Of course I could easily be wrong, and Monsanto and their frankenfood may well march on. There is more then enough ignorant people with small incomes to accompidate GMOs even if they are labeled. I expect the worst but hope for the best.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 

The point is not the expense. The point is that without being absolutely sure that their product does not contain GMOs (which would actually be a rarity), it would be too risky for manufacturers not to label their product. It is my contention that instead of being able to locate non-GMO product the consumer will be faced with nothing but "may contain GMO" labels.


The real question here is how was it even remotely fair or legal for Monsanto paid politicians to effectively block any effort made to allow truly non-GMO organics to have a "DOES NOT CONTAIN GMO" label
Can you provide evidence of this? Here is an organization which doesn't seem to be hindered by any such "block".
www.nongmoproject.org...

Now, which do you think more effectively informs the consumer? A program of mandatory labeling which "encourages" a label whether or not GMO materials are present? Or a voluntary program which says "non-GMO"? Which is more 'merican?

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



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

The real question here is how was it even remotely fair or legal for Monsanto paid politicians to effectively block any effort made to allow truly non-GMO organics to have a "DOES NOT CONTAIN GMO" label
Can you provide evidence of this? Here is an organization which doesn't seem to be hindered by any such "block".
www.nongmoproject.org...


1. Then I return to the "May contain nuts" labeling argument. That hasn't seemed to be too much for producers to deal with... why would GMO be any different?

2. Direct to the above quote. www.non-gmoreport.com...

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

This, as I said before, takes the rBST dairy labeling fiasco to a whole new level. It also seems to demonstrate that agribusiness conglomerates' (such as Monsanto) lobbying efforts are finding their mark in Washington DC.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


1. Then I return to the "May contain nuts" labeling argument. That hasn't seemed to be too much for producers to deal with... why would GMO be any different?
And it doesn't tell you which products have nuts and which don't. A GMO label says it might.


2.Direct to the above quote. www.non-gmoreport.com...
Yes. And the same problem would apply to mandatory labeling unless similar provisions were included in the labeling law. Without similar provisions, everything would have to be labeled because there is no way to say that there are no GMO materials in it. So now what? We have a mandated lable, the lack of which does not actually say there are no GMO materials in the product.
edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Phage, Your lack of an argument is a joke. If we are even remotely the country that we claim to be, then we should ask the 'inferior' countries how they do it since, clearly, as you would say, we are incapable of such incredibly complex routines.


Russia – Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Australia - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
New Zealand - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Hungary - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
France - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Spain - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
U.K. - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Sweden - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Italy - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Greenland (Denmark) - Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
China - Mandatory labeling of many GE foods and a labeling threshold of 1% or higher, or undefined GMO content.
India - Mandatory labeling of some GE foods, but with many exceptions and no labeling threshold defined – or a vague law.
Bhutan – No GE food labeling laws according to the map, however, Bhutan recently made headlines for being the first country to go 100% organic.
Brazil - Mandatory labeling of many GE foods and a labeling threshold of 1% or higher, or undefined GMO content.
United States – No GE food labeling laws.
Canada - No GE food labeling laws.
Mexico - No GE food labeling laws.



edit on 7-8-2013 by R3V3L4710N5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I am so very thankful to be living among an extremely large Amish/Mennonite community in the Kitchener/Waterloo area. For me, the availability of food (fruits, vegetables and meat) uncontaminated by GMO's is unlimited.

In some cases, a modicum of caution is not Luddism, it is promoting the mixed farm processes which have stood humanity for many millennia.

I worry about the widening use of pesticides and herbicides in the modern farmland. We are decimating entire species of plant and wildlife as if it does not matter. Well, for a long time, it may not, but does anyone really know what the ultimate impact will eventually be? My new grandchild is due this month... what will his/her future look like? I don't want to play silly bugger too much with that.

Bees and Monarchs are the canaries in the coal mine and, regardless of what is to blame, I don't much like the fact they're both suddenly very scarce.

Does anyone? Does Monsanto really care or is it just the bottom line with that company?
edit on 7/8/13 by masqua because: typo



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by R3V3L4710N5
 


If we are even remotely the country that we claim to be, then we should ask the 'inferior' countries how they do it since, clearly, as you would say, we are incapable of such incredibly complex routines.
Sorry, the "everybody is doing it" bandwagon doesn't impress me. But it's good you're doing some investigation.

I don't really understand this

Requires mandatory labeling of nearly all GE foods and a labeling threshold of 0.9-1% GMO content.
Mandatory labeling of "nearly" all? And how does that "threshold" enter into it? Does that suggest that products below that threshold cannot be labeled if the manufacturer wants to be sure of not being in violation? Doesn't really seem to be different from what we are talking about.

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



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Does anyone? Does Monsanto really care or is it just the bottom line with that company?

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

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



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Seeing how the majority of the bees in my area died during the spring corn planting, it's been opined that the dust raised during the process was responsible. In areas where the ground was not as dry, the bees survived nicely.

That's a pretty good clue, imho.

ETA:


Originally posted by Phage
But of course, that must be to come up with better ways to kill them. Right?


If you say so, Phage. Or was that sarcasm?
edit on 7/8/13 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange

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.


Thanks for the compliment. I get that one a lot.


Either you are very young, or you simply lack the mental capacity necessary to grasp even an elementary concept such as the one I presented. So I'll try to make this as simple as possible....

Two gallons of milk are sitting side by side on the shelf of a cooler at your local grocery store. One says GMO-FREE, the other does not... which one are you going to buy?

That was a rhetorical question. Of course you're going to buy the one with the GMO-FREE label....
Which is exactly why they're not ALLOWED to do so.

Do you really think the reason there aren't any GMO-FREE labels is because of the cost of the label? If that fraction of a penny label were allowed, it would be the biggest, most eye-catching label on the product. The cost of the label is nothing when your product is flying off the shelf.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


That's a pretty good clue, imho.
Could be. Could be something more complex than simple as well. But blaming Monsanto and GMOs is a bit of a reach without something stronger than that. In any case it's not really about the topic, is it?


Or was that sarcasm?
yes, yes it was.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Which is exactly why they're not ALLOWED to do so.
Actually, no. That is not why they are not allowed to do so. It is because it is impossible to verify that a product is completely free of GMO materials. See this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The EU acknowledges this with their revised requirements.
edit on 8/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by masqua
 


That's a pretty good clue, imho.
Could be. Could be something more complex than simple as well. But blaming Monsanto and GMOs is a bit of a reach without something stronger than that. In any case it's not really about the topic, is it?


Oh, t's applicable alright. I'm all for full disclosure on what my future grandchild will be eating. Babies are so susceptible to lifelong effects from such things. Mad Cow Disease, while not directly related to GMO, was still an experiment to increase the bottom line for feed companies.


Or was that sarcasm?

yes, yes it was.



I'd prefer you be straight with me, if you don't mind. Games like that are so infantile.


edit on 7/8/13 by masqua because: bbcodeX2



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


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


If sales of products labelled "May contain GMO" decrease ...... this tells the producers that their product is undesirable. Which would probably prompt a rethink of the broader "May contain..." label for something more specific. If GMO`s have such bad press why slap that off-putting message on your product.


It is an interesting topic to tease out
- Wayyyy too many people have missed the point of the thread after seeing that particularly emotive acronym.



edit on 7-8-2013 by UmbraSumus because: change: to / too




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join