Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by Phage


You misunderstand. Not you, Monsanto does.

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.

Your point is that labeling wont really change the sitiuation for consumers in the States. Read the rest of my post and you will see that the outcome might be quite differently (e.g. Europe). Monsanto knows, that's why they don't like it.

reply to post by Daedalus

ok, and just because you don't care about it, doesn't mean that nobody cares about it...

Nope. Want me to say it again? Ok, once again:
I think that if the majority of voters want mandatory labeling there should be mandatory labeling.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

You misunderstand. Not you, Monsanto does.

Yes I did. My apologies.
Yes, Monsanto and other GMO suppliers do cite the impression that labeling may give as a concern of theirs. As a business they have a right to be concerned about things that may affect them, don't they? I'm not "defending" them. I am asking a question.

Your point is that labeling wont really change the sitiuation for consumers in the States. Read the the rest of my post and you will see that the outcome might be quite differently (e.g. Europe).

Can you give us an idea about the number of labeled vs unlabeled products are available in the EU market? I've been looking for statistical information about that as well as sales numbers comparing the two but haven't managed to find much.

Like your avatar by the way. I used that shot for a while myself.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

ok, and just because you don't care about it, doesn't mean that nobody cares about it...

Nope. Want me to say it again? Ok, once again:
I think that if the majority of voters want mandatory labeling there should be mandatory labeling.

I think we both know that what the citizens of this country "want" means nothing in a Corporatocracy. Monsanto has bought and paid for the ability to do anything they please in the pursuit of profits. Even to the extent of poisoning the populace.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by olaru12

Well then.
I guess this whole discussion is pointless. There will never be mandatory labeling anyway.

reply to post by Phage


ok, that's cool, but again, given the lack of demonstrable proof that it is infeasible to have the labeling thing work, i, and many others fail to see the point of this thread.....

you've defeated the premise of this thread, and your own arguments, on multiple occasions....

dude, seriously.....if you're having some kind of an episode, or breakdown, and need a hug....well, i'm a really nice guy at heart...PM me your location, and i'd be more than happy to come out there and hook you up with a hug....there's nothing wrong with providing comfort and support to those in need....

i really am genuinely concerned..

Originally posted by Phage

Yes, Monsanto and other GMO suppliers do cite the impression that labeling may give as a concern of theirs. As a business they have a right to be concerned about things that may affect them, don't they? I'm not "defending" them. I am asking a question.

right, they do absolutely have a right to have that concern....

the point of specificity that i think you are overlooking is that the concern may not be over lost profits as a result of false claims.....the concern may be over lost profits, and exposure....exposure of deliberate duplicity, and misinformation, resulting in injury to customers, and additional lost profits from legal liabilities for their actions....

in other words, they may be afraid that mandatory labeling may result in greater public awareness of the existence, and nature of GMO's, which may result in them being caught in multiple lies, and find themselves in serious trouble..

reply to post by Daedalus

you've defeated the premise of this thread, and your own arguments, on multiple occasions....

I don't agree.

dude, seriously.....if you're having some kind of an episode, or breakdown, and need a hug

No. I'm fine. Really. You see, I can get involved with discussions without getting emotional wrapped up in them and I find it aids the process of critical thought.

i really am genuinely concerned..

I don't believe you.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

you've defeated the premise of this thread, and your own arguments, on multiple occasions....

I don't agree.

dude, seriously.....if you're having some kind of an episode, or breakdown, and need a hug

No. I'm fine. Really. You see, I can get involved with discussions without getting emotional wrapped up in them and I find it aids the process of critical thought.

i really am genuinely concerned..

I don't believe you.

lol, believe it or not, i am.....it's never fun to see a person totally lose it....unless they're a complete asshole, which you are not..you're just KIND of an asshole....sometimes....

and you don't need to be emotionally wrapped up in a discussion, to demonstrate signs of a mental break....i've seen it before...

i'm not asking you as some kind of silly debate tactic, to try and paint you as stupid, or deficient, or unstable....i'm genuinely concerned as to your mental state....after all, it's not right to pick on, or go full on at someone who's already "wounded", so to speak..

reply to post by Phage


Thought I'd weigh in and post up what is being done in Australia/New Zealand.

Probably should have looked into it sooner too.

Do GM foods have to be labelled?

GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words ‘genetically modified’. Novel DNA or protein is defined in the Food Standards Code as DNA or a protein which, as a result of the use of gene technology, is different in chemical sequence or structure from DNA or protein present in counterpart food, which has not been produced using gene technology.

Labelling is also required when genetic modification results in an altered characteristic in a food, e.g. soy beans with changed nutritional characteristics such as an increase in their oleic acid content.

GM labelling is not about safety. It is about helping consumers make an informed choice about the food they buy.

And

Exemptions from GM labelling

GM foods that do not contain any novel DNA or protein or altered characteristics do not require labelling. A decision not to label these foods was made because the composition and characteristics of these foods is exactly the same as the non-GM food. These foods are typically highly refined foods, such as sugars and oils, where processing has removed DNA and protein from the food, including novel DNA and novel protein.

Flavours containing novel DNA or protein in a concentration of no more than 0.1% are also exempt from labelling.

Labelling is also not required when there is no more than 1% (per ingredient) of an approved GM food unintentionally present as an ingredient or processing aid in a non-GM food. This means labelling is not required when a manufacturer genuinely orders non-GM ingredients but finds that up to 1% of an approved GM ingredient is accidentally mixed in non-GM ingredient.

None of the above exemptions apply if the GM food has altered characteristics.

www.foodstandards.gov.au...

I think this is satisfactory and quite clear.

You may be interested in this too:

Response to studies cited as evidence of adverse effects from GM foods

reply to post by Phage

Can you give us an idea about the number of labeled vs unlabeled products are available in the EU market? I've been looking for statistical information about that as well as sales numbers comparing the two but haven't managed to find much.

Couldn't find any exact statistics, but as i pointed out in my post, since labeling became mandatory regulation in the EU, foods containing transgenic crops virtually vanished from the market in most european countries and most producers and suppliers (including major food companies i.e. Kraft, Heinz etc) started to use non-GMO ingredients for their products.

The European Union, one of the key markets of the biotechnology industry, remains closed for transgenic crops, public opinion being opposed to transgenic food for over ten years.

Only two transgenic crops are authorized for cultivation in the EU, Monsanto's Bt maize, MON810 and the Amflora potato developed by BASF. The maize was genetically modified to produce it’s own toxins against the Ostrinia nubilialis pest and the potato was developed for extra starch content, but also contains a marker gene for antibiotics resistance.

In 2008, the total of GMO cultivated areas fell in the EU due to the ban of Monsantos’ MON810 Bt maize in France (2008) and Germany (2009) because of environmental and health issues. As a result, the total of GMO cultivated areas in the EU decreased by 2%, to 107719 ha. In the 27 countries of the European Union, genetically modified organism cultivation represents 0,21% of the arable land.


Only 6 out of 27 European countries grow MON810 (2 less then in 2007). The 6 countries which grow the MON810 genetically modified maize are: Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Portugal.
Six European countries banned MON810 on environmental and health issues, the most recent being Germany and France, two of the leading agricultural countries of the EU. The six countries which banned the MON810 are: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Poland.

source

But doesn't this exemption render the whole premise of your thread void? Unavoidable trace amounts, wasn't it?

GMO Compass

Labelling is not required for food containing GMOs up to a threshold of 0.9 percent:

if the producer, or importer, of a product is in a position to supply evidence that appropriate steps have been taken to avoid the presence of such material and that the presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable[..]

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by Kurius
Suggesting small farms/food producers to voluntarily label "No GMO" on their food products is also a dumb idea.

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

Why is that a dumb idea? that is actually a great idea. We can call these businesses frequently and ask them if there is GMO in their products and when they say no then ask "Well how do I know which ones don't have GMO?...Do you use a label?"

It's a dumb idea because there will be an organization that will monopolize the certification. They will charge an exorbitant amount of money and will do their best to disqualify those who do not enroll in their exclusive "trusted" club. This is happening already with "Organic" labels. So those who are GMO-free and unable to afford the labels maybe assumed to have GM components in their product....unless they do self-labeling. Then dirty politics will kick in. More fights will ensue between the supposedly good guys...while the bad guys sit back and watch.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by neo96
I am tired on the endless GMO hatred on these boards.

ENDLESS

Because as everyone 'knows' those evil corporations 'Mostano' IE just want to kill people, and do other evil things.

Here's a thought instead of making a evil corporation cater to your every neurosis grow your own food.

Rather simple solution to what is an obvious political machination.

Non GMO food is already labeled as 'Organic'..

That's not true because there are other things that can disqualify something as being organic, not just GMO... and the organic market is rather small in a grocery store. Busy consumers need more choices than just the small organic product list.

There are probably loads of foods that do not have GMO that can't be called organic. Just because someone might eat something processed doesn't mean they want to support GMO.

I'm not really concerned about the health effects from GMO because I already feel like crap and am not afraid to die. I don't like being sick but if I can't do things like boycott Monsanto, then what is there to look forward to? As much of a hard time as I have been given, I have to satisfy my urges to give someone a hard time who damn well deserves.

Monsanto made agent orange. Monsanto made many harmful chemicals and is a government favored company. It is too big, it is too powerful. Instead of using that power to make themselves an even bigger more powerful company by completely disregarding life on planet Earth by continuing to produce some of the most harmful crap without conscience, they need to do something more useful with their clout... perhaps like they did when they mass produced LEDs, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm aware because it uses less power.

But this insistence... combined with their history of ignoring what is harmful to people...??? I want to boycott them simply for who they are... and I should have the right to do that, just like if the food I buy funds something I don't support that has absolutely nothing to do with food (cough *hummus* cough) then I have the right to know that crap.

Let me just add to that...if only they had come clean and allowed independent, public-funded bodies to test their GM crops, round-up's properly. Don't go around the back door to get their products out in the market....then ensure there're laws in place that will protect them in the future if they are found to cause harm. Their actions have raised heightened suspicions amongst those with healthy brain cells. I don't know about killing people, but it should at least be quite clear that they care more about immediate profit$ than human health...don't you agree?.

But trying to get people to understand that mandatory labeling ain't going to get them what they are asking for, an informed decision...

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

We will never know, will we? It is your assumption "that mandatory labeling ain't going to get them what they are asking for, an informed decision". Many people depend on labels for informed decisions...mis-labeling may have serious repercussions. This may not apply to you, but it is false to think that everyone else is like you, don't you think?

Or, you can just go here:

www.nongmoproject.org...

and find out what foods might be GMO. Then, avoid those foods, if you like.

Originally posted by lincolnparadox

Or, you can just go here:

www.nongmoproject.org...

and find out what foods might be GMO. Then, avoid those foods, if you like.

Of course there are also mobile phone apps. BUT, the main problem I have is they tend to list non-gmo food instead of having a comprehensive listing of GMO ones. Listing of non-GMO's is NOT ideal. It will eventually lead to producers of GMO-free food having to pay heaps to be listed....hiking the price of healthier alternatives even more for consumers.

Originally posted by coastlinekid

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

reply to post by Phage

 

no, just better ways to exploit them,... like us ,right?

as to your link...

Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and other agrichemical companies say other factors such as mites are killing the bees.

Wow,... NBC really dug deep into the mysteries of GMO...

Relying on NBC's investigative reporting is a dumb idea. Their analytic. questioning brains are dead probably even before the bees.

That OP argument is the just the worst fallacy I've ever heard. They label tarns fats, sulphites - tons of other things at no cost. That "cost goes to the consumer" bull was just something they dreamed up to scare California voters into voting no. They have no problem putting anything else they want on a food item. Ingredients in many things change every few months sometimes. Some cereals if you buy them a few months later will have a different list of ingredients. Oh gee, I bet it was so hard to change that ingredient list. Give me a break.

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)

Yada yada Phage - after some adjustments, it would be costless to them and us. I hate to be so negative, but your argument is baseless.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
It just seems to me that labeling all goods that contain some GMOs is thinking backwards.

It would be like labeling all the non kosher foods as non kosher.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to label the non GMO foods. It would justify the higher cost sort of like kosher foods to.

That would be great except people have already gotten sued for labeling their products as non GMO.