'Vermont Wins, Mandatory GMO Labeling Will Start in July'

a reply to: DJW001

See, I don't see that happening. At least not around here. (MI)
In just the last year, we have had 3 new, fairly large organic farms pop up, just around my neighborhood. And I only know this, because they actually have signs up, along with no spray signs out by the road.

a reply to: FamCore

I've been back and forth on this issue--I firmly believe that we should know what we're putting into our bodies, and for whatever reason(s) an individual deems it worth avoiding GMO foods, they should be able to easily find out if a food product contains GMO ingredients.

That said, I'm not as certain that the state should be forcing private companies to change their labels yet another time. If this were 1974 and we had very limited ways to research the ingredients in food, I could see this being the best option, but we live in a world where we can speak into a tiny hand-held rectangle and it will automatically search the entire internet for whatever we tell it to find.

My point being is that it really is costly to redo food labeling, along with all of the behind-the-scenes time and money invested into confirming each ingredient's GMO status--as with everything in the retail world, that cost will get passed on to the consumer. Now, what if instead, they avoided the cost of redesigning and reprinting labels and just had a mandatory, prominent link on the product's homepage that listed the status of all of the ingredients? Making changes to web pages is generally quick and easy when it's just written content, and we all know that changes will have to be made possibly often enough that it will make the cost of redoing labels each time really impact the wallet of consumers.

This is why I'm torn--I don't want my wallet to be hit hard enough to be noticeable, even if I do back having access to this type of information. I think the food labeling is too onerous, but I like the idea of having to make the information EASILY available to the public.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I really don't know how it IS to find out which products are GMO.
Many products have corn starch in them....and we have little or no way to know where the agro-company got theirs.
So...is it GMO or not?

What about crystalline fructose?
Corn sugar?
Maltodextrin?
Should was assume all highly processed corn ingredients are GMO?

Is regular, legit corn starch sources easy to find?
Like this famous brand?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The fact of the matter is that food manufacturers order raw materials by the ton. They cannot tell whether the trainloads of corn syrup they are dumping into their products is all non-GMO or not. The most honest label would read: "This product may or may not contain GMOs."

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: DJW001

See, I don't see that happening. At least not around here. (MI)
In just the last year, we have had 3 new, fairly large organic farms pop up, just around my neighborhood. And I only know this, because they actually have signs up, along with no spray signs out by the road.

Are there GMO labeling laws in Michigan? Is organic produce competitive with non-organic produce yet?

a reply to: DJW001

That may be true....and when they don't know for sure, that should be part of the label.
But, unless someone can link a legit source....I am willing to be most highly processed corn products are GMO.
And, as they are highly processed, should be avoided anyway.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I agree. Much of what people call "food" is not. Why label a Twinkie "Contains GMOs?" Why not just label it: "For entertainment only. Contains no nutritional value and may be hazardous to your health?"

a reply to: DJW001

I don't know about Michigan as such, but even large grocery chains are getting on the organic bandwagon.
Kroger must be one of the largest grocery chains in the country....and the other chains they are associated with is a rather large list.

Kroger has an organic/natural version of many, many of the foods they sell.
What Kroger's Simple Truth line will not contain.
The foods are fairly good quality....although not always as good as brand names....and competitively priced.
www.simpletruth.com...

Meier's is a Midwest chain. They have a similar version of the natural/organic products/foods.
Their Meier Naturals and Meier Organics are already non-GMO!!!!!....but are now called True Goodness
allnaturalsavings.com...

a reply to: DJW001

"Organics" are generally 20% more expensive than "non-organics." Also, there is nothing to prevent GMOs being farmed organically and then labeled "organic." Farmers' markets are generally the best source for produce; it is locally produced and fresh. It doesn't matter what sort of chemicals they use since you should always wash it off first anyway.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

That's my point...how much money are these places going to have to spend on researching this, and then the companies who deliver their ingredients, will they now have to pay for certain certifications to prove they lack GMOs, or what?

This will create quite the out-of-control spiral of having to spend money to comply with this law, and We The Consumers will end up paying for it all out of our pockets.

That's why I was saying that we should try to save money where we can, even though it won't be much in the end.

The cost of relabeling is a bogus claim.

Many American food companies already label their foods as GMO or non-GMO when exporting to the European market. And given many of the chemicals/additives used here in the states are banned abroad, these same American companies produce their products with non GMO materials for the international market.

GMO labeling in Europe simply forced American companies to adjust. Now they commonly produce healthier versions of the same products sold here, overseas.

Why shouldn't Americans get the same respect from American companies which people overseas get?

I'm unsure of my stance on labeling, but I am not against GMOs as a technology, it all depends on what was modified, and what effect that modification can have on our bodies and on the organism that was modified. Of course testing these things gets complicated and would require looking at every aspect of the organism much like we do with natural things, protein pathways etc. Say the modification is inserting a gene or genes from a fish that give the fish the ability to not freeze despite having a 0C body temperature into plants to allow for growth in northern regions. You would need to identify all the gene products involved in the pathway that gives that phenotype and what effects every product of that pathway has on all other pathways natural to the modified organism.

If for instance one of the inserted gene's product (that later binds to another inserted gene's product to form the final complex preventing H2O from freezing in this case, I'm not sure of the exact details of that pathway but for the logic of the overall picture it works) also interacts with a natural gene product to block a pathway within the plant or upregulates some other aspect that disturbs homeostasis of the plant, it could have terrible side effects or it might not. Or the inserted gene product complexes with some natural gene product to create something that our bodies can't process correctly or interacts with one of our chemical pathways that throw off the homeostasis of some system in our bodies, it might lead to unintended side effects that might not be picked up in the test on other organisms, or it might take longer for the side effects to become noticeable, years which would be beyond studies ability to confirm. Or perhaps the fish antifreeze probably requires a regulator to slow production at a certain Molarity and if that gene(s) isn't present in the modified organism then the organism is liable to produce it constantly, but that would probably make the plant nonviable or deficient

Unfortunately I have no idea how indepth the FDA or the companies test these things and study the effects on the natural pathways of the GMOs. But from my point of view, as someone who has worked as an undergrad in a genetics research lab and taken a ton of course dedicated to genetics and research techniques, I would say most are probably safe, given we eat fish that have these antifreeze proteins for instance, and most other genes commonly used in GMOs come from other food products. That being said GMOs aren't all bad or all good, it all depends on the specifics. The one I am suspicious of, for instance, is the ones that are modified to kill insects when they ingest the plant. I would have to see all the specifics behind the testing to know for sure, but instinct makes me wary of that form of GMO.

As far as labeling is concerned, given the previous paragraphs, it does polarize the situation, and makes it seem like an all or none situation. While I would be the first to criticize Monsanto's use of this technology *cough kid with a lightsaber cough*, I also have to take into consideration the potential benefits this extremely powerful technology can bring to the world when making my decision on the approach to take going forward. I imagine the main reason most countries in Europe ban these products is because of the amount of research required to verify each individual GMO's safety would be a huge undertaking, not to mention the amount of time it would take to verify all the previous claims, there is massive amounts of disinfo, whether intentional or not, on both sides. The companies have profit incentive and no obligation to health, the FDA is a revolving door, and those against them who aren't scientist tend to make blanket claims. Given that most of the countries decided to ban them until more research is done on each GMO shows that the experts of these countries question the validity or thoroughness of not only the studies done and funded by the biotech companies but the FDA as well. So to just label the product as GMO may have negative consequences on not only the companies and economy, but also on the views people have on the GMO technology itself. The negative views would, in the future, stand in the way of actual thorough research and advancement that isn't for the sake of profit or, in the FDA's case, sake of the USA's economy or an individual's employer previous to working for the FDA, but for the betterment of humanity and saving large numbers of people from starvation and malnourishment in the future, and not to mention other benefits that could serve to slow down if not reverse desertification among other things.

In conclusion, This # be complicated, yo, and will take a long time to sort through, not to mention break through the lobbying and pass actual laws and regulations that are conducive to discovering all risk associated with each GMO and minimizing risk on top of maximizing yields, nutrition, and providing means to enable everyone in the world to have access to yummy num nums

I personally like the idea of gmo labeling, however - if you have some time to kill, here is a very good debate on the subject.