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.
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)
Yes. And that somebody who milled the flour was milling flour from many different sources.
Oh but they do. They purchase the corn flour from somebody, who purchased the corn from somebody else.
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.
Originally posted by neo96
Non GMO food is already labeled as 'Organic'..
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dominicus
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.
If you have the "gmo" label, that make sit much easier. Then I can check to see if it's wheat/corn/soy/alfalfa.
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?
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.
Yes. A good example of voluntary labeling. But did that label actually guarantee that no dolphins were killed?
I remember when I was an uninformed consumer and started seeing "Dolphin Safe Tuna" on some cans, but not on others.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nicks87
Looks like the consensus is that most people want GMO foods to be labeled.
Looks like another Phage Phail.
Silly statement. Of course you can. You can even get them from Monsanto.
it is more cost effective to use non gmo seeds. Problem is you can't get them,
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.
“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”
Originally posted by Phage
it cannot be proven that a product is free of GMO material. Testing methods are insufficient to determine that.
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?
Yes. A good example of voluntary labeling. But did that label actually guarantee that no dolphins were killed?
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?
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....
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
Is it? Do you think everything that says "may contain peanuts", contains peanuts?
and your scenario, where everything is labeled "may contain" whether it does, or not, is patently absurd
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".
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 seem to be the one who is getting agitated here.
settle down, man....don't blow a gasket..
I don't know why. Probably because they think it's not perfectly safe.
"If there's nothing wrong with GM food, and it's perfectly safe, why do people care if it's in their food?"
Because they're still stuck acting like a delinquent teenager, insisting their stuff is save and therefore, labeling would be unfair.
Originally posted by Phage
Is it? Do you think everything that says "may contain peanuts", contains peanuts?
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".
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.