Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea

reply to post by GrimReaper86

Even if they are lazy about labeling which is what your describing to me, laziness on the part of companies and an inability to handle change, assuming things go down like that, the consumer will be at least aware of what MAY contain GMO's.

It's not laziness. It's self-protection.

Just because a generic label isn't as useful as a more concise one doesn't degrade it's usefulness to a person just outright trying to avoid GMO's.

I would contend that anyone who is actively avoiding GMOs would be aware that every product containing corn or soy (at the very least) might contain GMO materials. If every product which might have GMO material in it (which would be all products made with corn or soy, for starters) has a label, how does that help?

Doesn't a voluntary "no-GMO" label make more sense if the idea is to help those who want to avoid GMOs to make an informed choice in the products they purchase? How does "may contain GMO" help one find products that don't?

reply to post by Phage


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.

Funny that you mention peanuts. To date, there are no gmo peanuts grown in the united stated, however if ever a gmo variety is announced, it will be hypoallergenic. That is the area that biotech companies are using to try to get their hands on our nuts. Pun intended.

For me this issue goes deeper, it is about self-ownership. I do not care on who pays what, I want to have the choice to use my body as i find fit, this includes my exclusive right to be able to introduce GM or non GM products inside myself. The 50%+1 of the population cannot decide by vote ownership over my own person and body. The absence of labelling is a clear violation of the self-ownership concept. As a Romanian citizen with some experience living under Ceausescu I could just say - this concept (denying the right to know what you are introducing in your body) stinks with a commie flavour. Nationalisation of your self-ownership.

reply to post by Bobaganoosh

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.

But it would be the responsibility of the factory to determine whether or not their product contained GMO materials so they would have to care. Maybe? Who knows. Thus, they would really have no choice but to label their product, even if it were completely GMO free, because they just wouldn't know.

But when you say "regional group of farmers" that doesn't really indicate that information about whether an order of corn meal would have GMO material or not. Not as things currently stand anyway.

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?

Erm NO and read on...

This compares to a similar food event over here in the UK/Europe. Meat had become contaminated with horsemeat. Now there is nothing illegal about eating or selling horsemeat. It just so happens that apart from the French it's a product normally reserved for pet food. The labelling on the food requires it to clearly state what is in the product irrespective of the original source. This is an identical situation to GMO. The only way to be guaranteed that a product does not contain horsemeat is to either ensure a robust supply chain with checks and balances (GMO no different) and to have random testing of the product to determine the genetic content (GMO no different).

So there is absolutely no difference whatsover in costs, methods supply chain control etc between GMO products and horsemeat.

Question : Is it OK to sell meat products that may contain horsemeat without the consumer knowing?

I think you will get a resounding no way in hell from all but the french !

Question Would labelling food "may contain horsemeat" result in normal sales or a collapse irrespective of price?

It is up to the producer to ensure their product is as it states on the label. It is competition with other suppliers that keeps the costs down. The supplier with a well controlled and managed food chain will not have the cost problems associated with preventing contamination.

The problem with GMO is that it is an argument that has not yet been won by the producers. They have failed miserably to convince people of it's safety and instead harp on about the benefits as if those who oppose wish to see African children starve, that's a pathetic and immoral approach. Sorry, but GMO is a genie in a bottle once it is released it will never go back in again. So we better be 100% certain it is safe. So far there have been too many cross contamination incidents in the field (sorry) to trust it yet.

Secondly the GMO supporters fail to recognise that better farming practises ie abandoning monocrop cultivation, basically, will solve almost all the problems that GMO purports to solve.

reply to post by Phage


In the rare event that gmo products got mixed up with non-gmo products, how likely would it even be noticed? Fines/other legal stuff wouldn't be an issue to any significant degree.

Really just comes down to did they use gmo seeds or not, and the producer would be able to say that pretty easy to the company that buys the raw products.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GrimReaper86

 

Even if they are lazy about labeling which is what your describing to me, laziness on the part of companies and an inability to handle change, assuming things go down like that, the consumer will be at least aware of what MAY contain GMO's.

It's not laziness. It's self-protection.

Just because a generic label isn't as useful as a more concise one doesn't degrade it's usefulness to a person just outright trying to avoid GMO's.

I would contend that anyone who is actively avoiding GMOs would be aware that every product containing corn or soy (at the very least) might contain GMO materials. If every product which might have GMO material in it (which would be all products made with corn or soy, for starters) has a label, how does that help?

Doesn't a voluntary "no-GMO" label make more sense if the idea is to help those who want to avoid GMOs to make an informed choice in the products they purchase? How does "may contain GMO" help one find products that don't?

If it's self protection then from my perspective it's self protection against being ignored by the consumer that they are poisoning intentionally or otherwise.

"How does "may contain GMO" help one find products that don't?"
Easy, find the products that don't have that label, and there you have it.

Although, I'm not opposed to a voluntary "no GMO" label, of course, then you have to look at the other end of the spectrum, non GMO food is already more expensive most of the time and in order to qualify for a "non GMO" label I'm sure products would need to meet specific standards/tests. Which would only increase the cost on non GMO food. If one or ther other must suffer labelling, I say make the those responsible for harming people by adding GMO's to their food intentionally or not label their products. No one is crying about cigarette's being labeled.

reply to post by Phage

The only thing that requiring GMO labels is likely to accomplish is labeling of every product which contains soy or corn.

There are non-GMO varieties of Soy and Corn (especially the highly nutritional purple maíz morado with high levels of anthocyanin like whats found in various purple colored berries).

There are real cool boutique food shops in a city which I live by, and they have tons of Non-GMO natural varities of soy and corn. So bring on the labeling, it's about time.

All the other major countries in Asia, Europe, NZ, AUS, are labeling their foods, and blocking Monsatan from bringing their poisons onto their soils.....

....yet here we are, still without GMO labels, all because Ex-Monsatan employees are working in the FDA, EPA, and other branches of US Gov (A Corporate Fascism). This goes much deeper than GMO labeling. It goes all the way up to Obama hiring Monsatan employees and putting them in positions of Power. So it involves tons of corruption, bribes, kickbacks, and over all fascism.

Also, please do understand that your sig, could just as easily be turned around on you, considering you have yet to undergo a 1 year all GMO diet.

Also, I know quite a few Farmer's who have been practically strong armed into using Monsatan products and they are all sick and their kids are sick from all the Glyphosate being sprayed in the fields. There are even stats showing higher cancer rates in rural counties where tons of these poisons are being sprayed.

So for me, it's quite simple. All you need to do, is an all GMO diet, while living for one year in a rural area where billions of tons of Glyphosate is sprayed, then come back here on ATS after that year and let's see if you can still type legible sentences, let alone even alive at that point, or without any tumors.

If you come out completely healthy after that 1 year plan, then I shall truly bow to the meaning in your signature. Until then, major facepalm

reply to post by GrimReaper86

"How does "may contain GMO" help one find products that don't?"
Easy, find the products that don't have that label, and there you have it.

You aren't going to find any products that don't have the label on it because it's too risky on the part of the manufacturer. They are going to label everything whether or not it has GMO material. They would be foolish not to do so.

reply to post by dominicus

So for me, it's quite simple. All you need to do, is an all GMO diet, while living for one year in a rural area where billions of tons of Glyphosate is sprayed, then come back here on ATS after that year and let's see if you can still type legible sentences, let alone even alive at that point, or without any tumors.

Ok. See you next year.
But you still don't understand the point of this thread.

reply to post by Phage


I can't be certain, but in a round about way yes.

Look at it from the farmers point of view. He wouldn't risk growing a half circle of organic produce and the other half gmo. That would automatically negate the organic certification of his produce. He would keep those two products as far from one another as possible. They would likely even be sold to different customers due to the high price of one versus the other. Only the biggest farmers can pull this off. The rest pick a side.

Product segregation is the same procedure wether you are processing organics, run of the mill, or gmo. Segregation begins in the warehousing operations and carries through to delivery to the customer. It is a very big deal in my facility. The facility is shut down and sanitized between runs especially when producing seed.

Even if labeling adds to the risk of the company, most are eager to please. We will take on that risk to appeal to more customers. The world is full of litigation over the dumbest of issues. No honest business would risk losing a customer base over a little ink.

Good thread and I promise to behave myself tonight:-)
First of all Monsanto and the rest of the gang ( corporations have always passed the buck) that is how their CEO'S get millions in bonuses yearly.

These people are not interested in feeding the world, their main concern is their shareholders and the CEO'S.

Personally I find the expense angle a bit lame, I mean basically we are talking about a US Company that spends a lot of money promoting their product.

At the same time the very government they lobby is spending Trillions on a fabricated continuous war without end.

Everybody is in bed together and having a good time in my opinion only.
Monsanto can handle any lawsuit financially no problem because as you insinuate they will just pass the losses on to us the consumer.

Here is a peer reviewed study which I am positive you have read and most posters here have as well but it is worth repeating I feel.

www.responsibletechnology.org...

Enjoying this thread and S&F for keeping the discussion open.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Phage
You aren't going to find any products that don't have the label on it because it's too risky on the part of the manufacturer. They are going to label everything whether or not it has GMO material. They would be foolish not to do so.

Yes. You are.

There would be plenty of smaller businesses that would not put a "can't be bothered to check if it's GMO or not" label on their products. Just as there are plenty whom label Organic now.

Forcing big agribusiness to label their wares would be a boon to small farms.

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.

reply to post by BritofTexas

There would be plenty of smaller businesses that would not put a "can't be bothered to check if it's GMO or not" label on their products. Just as there are plenty whom label Organic now.

The difference is, you cannot be fined or sued if you don't claim your product is organic.
The difference is, putting an organic sticker on your product is voluntary.

Forcing big agribusiness to label their wares would be a boon to small farms.

I doubt it. Addressed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's easy. Mandate it for al companies. These companies will know if they use GMO crap. They'll find out from the ground up - from the start of the line since it'll be mandated.. No additional costs will be needed. EVERYONE will already have been labled. So.. just carry the info over. Nothing different than MSDS sheets that we already have in place for chemicals. it should be treated the same... as poison.

reply to post by Bobaganoosh

Even if labeling adds to the risk of the company, most are eager to please. We will take on that risk to appeal to more customers. The world is full of litigation over the dumbest of issues. No honest business would risk losing a customer base over a little ink.

I'm a little confused by this statement.
Do you mean that manufacturers would be willing to take the risk of not applying a GMO label in order to maintain their customer base? If that's the case, let me resort to the anti-GMO crowd's argument of "why are manufacturers resisting labeling?" If they are willing to accept the increased liability, and if it's no added cost burden, if all it is about is a little bit of ink...why do you think they,in general, seem to be opposed?

Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea/The consumer has a right to know what they are eating. Absolutely! No way to argue that.

reply to post by Phage


you have argued against yourself

if the "cost" is the only argument against labeling GMO foods then thats really weak...

companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee

and litigation? as if a corporation such as Monsanto is not prepared or actively spending money to get laws in place to free them from litigation already..

The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

even if the labeling is so vague as to ay "may or may not contain GMO source foods" those of us who have friends & family with allergies know that somewhere in the production contact may have been made or included so we can avoid that product..

and that's Monsanto's problem..

Monsanto has spent millions to get a legal hold on life through patents.

Monsanto has spent millions on research..

Monsanto has spent millions on security..

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. - See more at: www.darkgovernment.com...

this monopoly on basic life on earth has never been up for public debate..
how insane would it have been to allow a compnay to own all the seeds or a pig 100 years ago, while the government was busting up railroad, oil, and banking monopolies? it would have been unthinkable.

so, I would agree with you on both points.

1) The consumer does has a right to know what they are eating. No way to argue that.

2) Labeling of GMOs is a Dumb Idea. A dumb idea from Monsanto's point of view. Why give the people the ability to not purchase their frankenfood, when they have went to such extremes to get farmers dependent yearly on their seeds & pesticides, the Government to pass laws, and years of research paying scientists, the cost of keeping this sterilization plan from the people, and now they have a private army for protection?


all this clandestine effort can be undermined by a simple label giving the consumer a choice when making their purchase just like every other item on the market? that is a dumb idea.. for them..








it must be a boring day in the world for you to waste your time on this topic..

reply to post by reeferman

Very impressive pile of...stuff. But you should know that source of blitz technique doesn't really impress me or anyone else.

Now do you want to actually talk about the topic?
How is a consumer supposed to be more informed if all products which might have GMO materials in them are labeled whether or not they actually have GMO materials in them?

Don't you think it would make more sense for system like that used for organic products to be used? This way instead of "may contain GMO materials" there would be a label that says "no-GMO materials". If someone is looking for non-GMO products, wouldn't this be more useful information?

reply to post by Phage


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? It obviously isn't that hard for company that outright state they don't use GMO's because they buy from non GMO farms. It shouldn't be hard for a company, especially a large company that makes a lot of profit, to know whether or not their food contains ingrediants from farms that use GMO's.

If that isn't the case then please explain to me why I am wrong or explain to me what I am ignorant of.