Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC 27)   States considering weighing labels on genetically-altered food. Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?   (abc27.com ) divider line 161
    More: Interesting, Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMOs, genetically modified food, cash crops  
•       •       •

930 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:31 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 11:44:44 PM  
Unless you buy organic, it's probably GMO. That said; I don't like it in general, but sugar snap peas-couldn't live without 'em.
 
2014-01-26 01:23:44 AM  

shtychkn: Kensey: Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.

Again, if they don't want to deal with the extra tracking, they add "Contains GMOs" to the label and there you go, no more costs.

There are only more costs IF a product wants to be recognized as not containing GMOs.  And that cost is paid for by people who don't want GMOs.


So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs.
 
2014-01-26 07:53:59 AM  

AlanSmithee: PunGent: Caution /= fear.

Caution has been the order of the day for all new foods, with even more stringent requirements for GMOs.
At this point, it's plain old unmerited fear that is motivating the dingbats.


Some effects of certain chemical processes don't show up until the children of the people who ingested the chemical reach puberty.  See DES, for example.  Fully approved by the FDA and numerous studies, of course.

Must be safe, right?

Also, google 'regulatory capture.'

Have fun in the test group, though.

Maybe you'll get superpowers!
 
2014-01-26 08:15:11 AM  

Gawdzila: cold_weather_tex: It's not that I don't trust genetically-altered food, I'm probably eating it as I type, it's that there is not nearly enough transparency with what they are doing.

The problem is that providing information is only useful if people know what to do with it or if it comes in some sort of informative context.  If they don't, or it doesn't, people make assumptions instead.  Assumptions like "Hmm, they're warning me that this food is genetically modified.  That sounds scary, maybe it's bad for me".

The people who support the GMO label stuff know full well that the purpose is to dissuade rather than inform, which is what really bothers me about it.  Not only are they wrong about GMO stuff, but they're trying to get everyone on their side by taking advantage of ignorance and a fear of evil "weird science" instead of actually seeking to persuade with factual information.

As it is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Yeah, how dare someone with a nut allergy learn that his soy products have Brazil nut genes in them.

Or someone with a shellfish allergy learn his tomatoes have clam genes in them.

God knows what they'd do with that information.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal
 
2014-01-26 08:26:29 AM  

Gway: MrBallou: Snarfangel: MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.

I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.

The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

While it is definitely of general interest, I thought the conversation pertained to putting Round Up into the genome of edibles... ... ?


Yes, it does. My facetious comment was meant to suggest that the labels should have real information about the chemical content, not just that it's a "GMO".
 
2014-01-26 11:51:59 AM  

PunGent: Some effects of certain chemical processes don't show up until the children of the people who ingested the chemical reach puberty.  See DES, for example.  Fully approved by the FDA and numerous studies, of course.

Must be safe, right?


Your objection applies much, much  more to the traditional ways of creating new breeds. As I (and others) have pointed out several times in the thread, the old ways include radiation and mutagenic chemical baths --thus introducing a much greater batch of novel chemicals than GMO , yet you dim bulbs just object to the latter for no good reason other than you saw  a scary meme or watched a paranoid conspiracy movie.
 
2014-01-26 01:26:41 PM  

PunGent: Yeah, how dare someone with a nut allergy learn that his soy products have Brazil nut genes in them.

Or someone with a shellfish allergy learn his tomatoes have clam genes in them.

God knows what they'd do with that information.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal


Except they wouldn't learn any of those things even WITH the label.  The proposed labels don't contain anywhere near that depth of information, they just would add "genetically modified" before the ingredient name.  That would tell you nothing of use at all.  You wouldn't know if the food had been modified by adding phytoene synthase and carotene desaturase to fortify it with extra vitamin A, or Ara h1 to kill people with peanut allergies.

Also, in general we can identify the specific proteins (and thus the specific genes) that cause severe allergies, and nobody is going to genetically engineer those into another organism - that would ruin their company.  More likely, in fact, would be genetic modification to remove / replace allergen-producing genes with similar functioning genes from other species that don't trigger allergic reactions.
 
2014-01-26 01:42:26 PM  

Kensey: So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs



You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "its too hard to track, GMOs are in EVERYTHING" then turn around and say, "you cant make me label I have GMOs when their is a sliver of a chance I might not!"

So yeah, if you don't prove you don't have GMOs, chance are you do.  Especially give all your arguments you've made against how hard it would be to track GMOs you made earlier.  This lets the customer know the pervasiveness of GMOs.

And for the few companies that go through the effort to ensure that they have no GMOs, they get to label "no GMOs".
 
2014-01-26 02:05:38 PM  
Just like the GOP, no good reason, just "NO!"
smoke/fire
active misinformation campaign/something hidden
deliberate full retard/Fark shill talking derp

What, you fools think you are invisible?
Just like the Walmartian blocking three isles at once, you are taking up space, and WE SEE YOU!
 
2014-01-26 07:20:27 PM  
These are the same food manufacturers who have no qualms about putting "Cholesterol Free!!!" on foods that never had cholesterol in them in the first place.  Cholesterol Free Squash!  Cholesterol Free Potatoes!!!  Don't buy those other guys' products because OURS have zero cholesterol in them- and they're afraid to admit just how much cholesterol is in THEIR products.

Food producers love putting labels on their food, as long as:
a) They don't have to spend any money to comply with whatever it is they're claiming
b) The labels make people buy more of their food and/or
c) They think they can charge more for their food when the labels are on it.
 
2014-01-27 12:38:32 AM  

shtychkn: Kensey: So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs


You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "its too hard to track, GMOs are in EVERYTHING" then turn around and say, "you cant make me label I have GMOs when their is a sliver of a chance I might not!"

So yeah, if you don't prove you don't have GMOs, chance are you do.  Especially give all your arguments you've made against how hard it would be to track GMOs you made earlier.  This lets the customer know the pervasiveness of GMOs.

And for the few companies that go through the effort to ensure that they have no GMOs, they get to label "no GMOs".


What you're missing is that under, for example, Prop. 37, more than just the producer would be liable for the label integrity.  Everybody who touched any component of the product between production and consumption would have had to maintain records demonstrating the "chain of purity".  Obviously the producer cares, and so does the end retailer, a little, but the distributors have the most opportunity to fark up the chain and the least incentive not to do so.

So the farmer growing say, avocados (to pick a food completely at random), may sell them as GMO-free -- and they are, when he puts them up for sale.  But then the major distributors decide they don't make enough money off that market segment to deal with setting up separate shipping and handling facilities and even then taking the risk that a simple farkup along the line will leave them exposed to a big damage verdict.  So GMO-Free Farms suddenly has nobody willing to buy their GMO-free avocados as GMO-free at a premium price.  What they can do is sell them to the distributor as ordinary avocados -- so now why bother even going to the trouble if the end consumer they're doing it for (somebody who wants non-GMO food) is actually going to avoid their product because the middlemen can't be bothered?

Note that this doesn't mean labeling is doomed to fail, it just means you have to set the bar for compliance a bit low -- which is precisely what the anti-biotech forces don't want.  They want to force everybody to have completely separate plants for handling non-GMO food, not realizing that this will push GMO-free food even further to the margins of the food marketplace instead of putting it center stage.
 
Displayed 11 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report