The Case Against Labeling GMO Foods

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 4:43 PM GMT
    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2012/11/_natural_on_food_labels_why_the_fda_doesn_t_and_shouldn_t_regulate_the_term.single.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 5:15 PM GMT


    Starlink.

    'StarLink is the corn that triggered last fall's recall of taco shells, tortillas, and many other corn-based foodstuffs from supermarkets. It is the one genetically modified corn not approved for human consumption. The costs of its recall— losses to farmers, to food companies like Kraft and ConAgra, to grain exporters like Archer Daniels Midland, and to the StarLink manufacturer, Aventis— are still being totaled, but they may exceed $1 billion. More important, the episode may have shifted the debate over genetically modified foods in the American diet— shifted opinion against them, according to one national poll.'

    Allergic reaction in humans.

    Nice article you posted, though, about how businesses can't be trusted with our health and so require regulation. As you can see in the above reference, business practices gave GM a bad name.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 5:20 PM GMT


    Then of course there's the pollen full of Bt from such crops, because it was also done to potatoes tomatoes etc. Bt only kills insects due to their alkaline digestive tracts. Unfortunately they never considered insects such as bees.

    Do you really think none of us have access to the intenet?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 5:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2012/11/_natural_on_food_labels_why_the_fda_doesn_t_and_shouldn_t_regulate_the_term.single.html


    WTF? Did you even read the article? It's the case against regulating the word "Natural." I don't see any good arguments against labeling GMO foods.

    I see a good argument that CA prop 37 was poorly worded.
  • gwuinsf

    Posts: 525

    Nov 20, 2012 6:47 PM GMT
    If you look at a bag of Cheetos and are convinced that they are good for you just because the word "natural" is printed on them, then there's really no amount of labeling regulation that's ever going to help you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2012 9:34 PM GMT
    sctsm said
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2012/11/_natural_on_food_labels_why_the_fda_doesn_t_and_shouldn_t_regulate_the_term.single.html


    WTF? Did you even read the article? It's the case against regulating the word "Natural." I don't see any good arguments against labeling GMO foods.

    I see a good argument that CA prop 37 was poorly worded.


    The labeling of natural is intertwined with GMO labelling as the article suggests. From the article:

    Purity is a scientific concept, though, and one that can be quantified and printed on a label. It allows the government to make categorical distinctions between, say, a cracker made with 94 percent organic ingredients and one made with 95 percent organic ingredients. But the same approach does not get us very far when it comes to adjudicating what’s natural and what isn’t. Pure and natural claims often come together on a product package, but they’re just as often contradictory, and neither claim implies that a food is really good for you.

    Lawsuits like the one in Colorado may encourage the FDA to analyze what are essentially religious claims: that a Roundup Ready soybean is more artificial than a stunted heirloom vegetable or that dried pasta is more natural than dried milk. That’s what the government should be trying to avoid. That’s theology.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to leave these quibbles over nature to the side? If we’d like to know which products come from genetically modified crops, let’s solve that problem without appeal to moral categories. Here’s a message for the framers of Prop. 37 and for the FDA as well: Don’t tell me if God created Goldfish. Just tell me what’s in the goddamned package.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14325

    Nov 20, 2012 9:49 PM GMT
    GMO definitely needs to be strictly labeled here in the US in the same way that GMOs are strictly labeled in much of Europe and Japan. It is time to expose corrupt, rotten conglomerates like Monsanto for exactly what they are, poison producers.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Nov 21, 2012 2:12 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidGMO definitely needs to be strictly labeled here in the US in the same way that GMOs are strictly labeled in much of Europe and Japan. It is time to expose corrupt, rotten conglomerates like Monsanto for exactly what they are, poison producers.


    +1
    Exactly right.
    Genetically modified foods were developed in the lab for one reason: to make more money for giant agribusiness corporations. They were never adequately tested for safety and allergies. My money is on natural foods, not Monsanto's latest science experiment.
    These dubious food experiments should be clearly labeled, and people can choose whether they want to ingest Monsanto's latest science project.
    I choose not to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 2:38 AM GMT
    I have the right to determine what I put in my mouth. NOBODY has the right to sell me something without clearly identifying what they are selling. Whether you believe genetically engineered food items are harmless or harmful is irrelevant. What anybody believes doesn't affect a person's right to choose. If such items are not identified there is no right to choose. Not everybody can afford organic. Genetically engineered foods are about patents and monopolies. It doesn't take much research to see how the big agribusinesses are screwing small farms. They even engineer foods not to reproduce seed so that nobody can plant seeds without having to buy more from the same source. Is that about feeding the world? NO WAY. It is clearly about enriching a few at the expense of the many.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 3:28 AM GMT
    The problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Nov 21, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    xybender saidThe problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.


    Uh, almost everything you eat, organic or not, will have been selectively bred. So all food will be labelled GMO by your definition. Literally, all food.

    Unless its 100% wild, in which case, it's rarely legal to serve.
  • camfer

    Posts: 891

    Nov 21, 2012 4:00 AM GMT
    xybender saidThe problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.


    You are correct that certified organic food will not contain any genetically modified ingredients.

    However regarding traditional plant breeding aka the old fashioned Medelian way, is not GMO.

    The organic standard defines "excluded methods" that cannot be used for organic production. That definition is:

    "Excluded methods. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such [excluded] methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture."

    [Yeah I have to know these regulations for my livelihood.]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 4:54 AM GMT
    Much ado about nothing.

    If we want to work on changing the patent process so genes can't be patented, that would be a better use of our resources. Not a useless label that gives absolutely no useful information.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 5:13 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    xybender saidThe problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.


    Uh, almost everything you eat, organic or not, will have been selectively bred. So all food will be labelled GMO by your definition. Literally, all food.

    Unless its 100% wild, in which case, it's rarely legal to serve.


    Nail meet head. Science!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2012 4:32 AM GMT
    Apex0111 said
    Medjai said
    xybender saidThe problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.


    Uh, almost everything you eat, organic or not, will have been selectively bred. So all food will be labelled GMO by your definition. Literally, all food.

    Unless its 100% wild, in which case, it's rarely legal to serve.


    Nail meet head. Science!


    Wellllllll.......

    lol, this is hilarious (not really, but what the hey).

    We have a friend in genetic research at UBC. I mentioned to her this concept. She disagreed flatly. Traditional methods such as cross breeding are entirely different from GMO technologies. GMO tech permits transfers of genes between species that are not normally able to cross breed.

    She said to look at this:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357 and consider that science really doesn't know what kinds of diseases spiders are prone to.
    She also said studies showed that bt manipulated crops causes bees that use their pollen to become more susceptible to parasites.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2012 3:47 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Apex0111 said
    Medjai said
    xybender saidThe problem lies in terminology. GMO refers to BOTH conventional genetically modified food - the old fashion Mendelian way, and the high tech guns doing genetically engineered foods, as in injecting a pig gene into tomatoes.

    To be safe, just buy food labeled certified organics.


    Uh, almost everything you eat, organic or not, will have been selectively bred. So all food will be labelled GMO by your definition. Literally, all food.

    Unless its 100% wild, in which case, it's rarely legal to serve.


    Nail meet head. Science!


    Wellllllll.......

    lol, this is hilarious (not really, but what the hey).

    We have a friend in genetic research at UBC. I mentioned to her this concept. She disagreed flatly. Traditional methods such as cross breeding are entirely different from GMO technologies. GMO tech permits transfers of genes between species that are not normally able to cross breed.

    She said to look at this:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357 and consider that science really doesn't know what kinds of diseases spiders are prone to.
    She also said studies showed that bt manipulated crops causes bees that use their pollen to become more susceptible to parasites.


    Dude, did you read that article? That is awesome!! I say more spider silk producing goats!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14325

    Nov 24, 2012 2:38 PM GMT
    I would love to see Monsanto go bankrupt. After the way that crooked fortune 500 company poisoned our food supply, it lost all legitimate right to exist. Who cares if St Louis loses a corporate citizen, they will live without Monsanto.